draft - ogsair.com · 3.3 terminal area plan alternatives comparison..... 3-23 3.4 drainage...

Ogdensburg International Airport 5900 State Highway 812 Ogdensburg, NY 13669

SEPTEMBER 2020

ProjectTerminal Area ImprovementsEnvironmental AssessmentDraft

Draft Environmental Assessment Ogdensburg International Airport

ii

Proposed Action

(This page is intentionally left blank)

Ogdensburg International Airport Draft Environmental Assessment

iii

Table of Content

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.2 REGULATORY BASIS ................................................................................................................................ 1-12

2. PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 NEED ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Terminal Building Expansion ................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 Construction of Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Building ................................................ 2-3

2.2.3 Drainage Improvements ....................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.4 Relocation of Airport Entrance Road and Parcel Acquisition ................................................ 2-3

2.2.5 Fuel Farm Relocation and Installation of a Self-Serve Fueling Station .................................. 2-4

2.2.6 Terminal Apron Expansion .................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.7 Relocation of Taxiway C ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.8 Reconfiguration of Taxiway A ............................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 2-5

3. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 2 .......................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.3 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) ................................................... 3-11

3.2.4 Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................ 3-15

3.2.5 Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative .......................................... 3-19

3.3 TERMINAL AREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON ........................................................................ 3-23

3.4 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON .............................................................. 3-24

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Topography........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Ecological Communities ........................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.2 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................ 4-3

4.3 COASTAL ZONES AND BARRIERS .............................................................................................................. 4-7

4.4 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 4-7

4.5 FARMLANDS ............................................................................................................................................ 4-11

4.6 HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................. 4-15

4.6.1 Negative Results ................................................................................................................. 4-15

4.7 LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................. 4-15


iv

Proposed Action

4.7.1 Industrial and Commercial Activities Characteristics .......................................................... 4-16

4.7.2 Residential Areas, Schools, Places of Worship, Outdoor Areas .......................................... 4-19

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH AND

SAFETY RISKS ............................................................................................................................................ 4-19

4.9 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 4-20

4.9.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 4-20

4.9.2 Surface Waters ................................................................................................................... 4-21

4.9.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.9.4 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.9.5 National and State Forests, Wilderness Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................... 4-27

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.1 General Conformity Regulation ............................................................................................ 5-2

5.1.2 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Air Quality ............................................................. 5-3

5.1.3 Proposed Action - Operation Phase – Air Quality ................................................................. 5-5

5.1.4 Mitigation Measures – Air Quality ........................................................................................ 5-5

5.1.5 Significant Impact Threshold – Air Quality ............................................................................ 5-5

5.1.6 No Action - Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2.1 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................ 5-7

5.2.2 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Biological Resources ............................................. 5-7

5.2.3 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Biological Resources ............................................... 5-7

5.2.4 Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources ........................................................................ 5-7

5.2.5 Significant Impact Threshold – Biological Resources ............................................................ 5-8

5.2.6 No Action – Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 5-8

5.3 CLIMATE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-8

5.3.1 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 5-9

5.3.2 No Action – Climate .............................................................................................................. 5-9

5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION ......................................... 5-9

5.4.1 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Hazardous materials / Solid Waste ..................... 5-10

5.4.2 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Hazardous / Solid Waste ...................................... 5-10

5.4.3 Mitigation Measures / Pollution Prevention ....................................................................... 5-10

5.4.4 Significant Impact Threshold – Solid Waste ........................................................................ 5-11

5.4.5 No Action – Hazardous material and Solid Waste .............................................................. 5-11

5.5 LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................. 5-11

5.5.1 Significant Impact Threshold – Land Use ............................................................................ 5-12

5.5.2 No Action – Land Use ......................................................................................................... 5-12

5.6 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY ....................................................................................... 5-12

5.6.1 Proposed Phase - Construction Phase – Natural Resources and Energy Supply ................. 5-12

5.6.2 Proposed Phase - Operational Phase - Natural Resources and Energy Supply ................... 5-13

5.6.3 Significant Impact Threshold – Natural Resources and Energy Supply ............................... 5-13

5.6.4 No Action – Natural Resources and Energy Supply ............................................................. 5-13


v

Table of Content

5.7 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-13

5.7.1 Proposed Action - Construction Phase - Noise ................................................................... 5-17

5.7.2 Proposed Action - Operation Phase - Noise ........................................................................ 5-18

5.7.3 Significant Impact Threshold – Noise.................................................................................. 5-18

5.7.4 Mitigation Measures - Noise............................................................................................... 5-18

5.7.5 No Action - Noise ................................................................................................................ 5-19

5.8 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS ..... 5-19

5.8.1 Proposed Action - Industry, Employment and Income ....................................................... 5-19

5.8.2 Proposed Action - Community Tax Base ............................................................................. 5-20

5.8.3 Proposed Action - Environmental Justice ........................................................................... 5-20

5.8.4 Proposed Action - Local Traffic Patterns ............................................................................. 5-20

5.8.5 Proposed Action - Children’s Health and Safety Risks ........................................................ 5-20

5.8.6 Significant Impact Threshold .............................................................................................. 5-20

5.8.7 No Action - Socioeconomic ................................................................................................. 5-21

5.9 TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................................................... 5-21

5.9.1 Proposed Action – Construction Phase – Traffic ................................................................. 5-21

5.9.2 Proposed Action – Operation Phase - Traffic ...................................................................... 5-22

5.9.3 Significant Impact Threshold - Traffic ................................................................................. 5-22

5.9.4 No Action – Traffic .............................................................................................................. 5-22

5.10 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS .............................................................................................. 5-22

5.10.1 Significant Impact Threshold – Light Emission and Visual Effects ....................................... 5-23

5.10.2 No Action – Light Emissions / Visual Effects ....................................................................... 5-23

5.11 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 5-24

5.11.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 5-24

5.11.2 Surface Waters ................................................................................................................... 5-27

5.11.3 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Water Resources ................................................ 5-27

5.11.4 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Water Resources .................................................. 5-27

5.11.5 Mitigation Measures – Water Resources ........................................................................... 5-27

5.11.6 Significant Impact Threshold – Water Resources ............................................................... 5-28

5.11.7 No Action – Water Resources ............................................................................................. 5-28

5.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 5-28

6. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................. 6-1

6.1 AGENCY, TRIBAL AND LOCAL GOVERMENTAL COORDINATION .......................................................... 6-1

6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 6-1

7. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 7-1

8. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Proposed Terminal Area Building Improvements ..................................................................... 1-7

Table 1-2: Proposed Terminal Apron Expansion and Taxiway Improvements ........................................... 1-7

Table 1-3: Proposed Terminal Area Site Improvements .......................................................................... 1-11

Table 3-1: Alternative 2 – Project Elements .............................................................................................. 3-5


vi

Proposed Action

Table 3-2: Alternative 3 – Project Elements ............................................................................................ 3-11

Table 3-3: Terminal Area Plan Alternative Evaluation Criteria ................................................................. 3-23

Table 3-4: Drainage Improvements Alternative Evaluation Criteria ........................................................ 3-24

Table 4-1: Project Area Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 4-1

Table 4-2: Vegetation Assemblage Distribution ........................................................................................ 4-2

Table 4-3: Demographics – Race Data ..................................................................................................... 4-20

Table 4-4: Demographics – Economic Data ............................................................................................. 4-20

Table 4-5: Summary of Wetland Areas in the Vicinity of Project Development Area .............................. 4-21

Table 5-1: Level of Environmental Consequences per Alternatives .......................................................... 5-1

Table 5-2: Estimate of Annual Particulate Emissions from Construction................................................... 5-3

Table 5-3: Estimate of Annual Non-Road Emissions of Pollutants During Construction ............................ 5-4

Table 5-4: Vegetation Assemblages Distribution within Project Footprint ................................................ 5-6

Table 5-5: Nearest Noise Receptors to Project Area ............................................................................... 5-13

Table 5-6: Noise levels of Typical Construction Equipment ..................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-7: Summary of Project Footprint within Regulated Wetland Areas ............................................ 5-24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Location Map ........................................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2: Aerial Image ............................................................................................................................ 1-5

Figure 1-3: Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... 1-9

Figure 3-1: TAP Alternative 1 - No Action .................................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 3-2: TAP Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 3-9

Figure 3-3: TAP Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ............................................................................. 3-13

Figure 3-4: Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 – No Action. .............................................................. 3-17

Figure 3-5: Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative. ............................................ 3-21

Figure 4-1: Vegetation Assemblage Distribution ....................................................................................... 4-5

Figure 4-2: Section 4(f), Section 6(f) and NYS Protected Areas Map ......................................................... 4-9

Figure 4-3: Soils and Agricultural Districts Map ....................................................................................... 4-13

Figure 4-4: Land Use Map ........................................................................................................................ 4-17

Figure 4-5: State & Federal Wetlands and Surface Waters Inventory ..................................................... 4-22

Figure 4-6: Delineated Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 4-25

Figure 4-7: FEMA Flood Hazards. ............................................................................................................. 4-29

Figure 5-1: OGS Noise Contour Map ....................................................................................................... 5-15

Figure 5-2: Wetland Impacts – Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 5-25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: New York State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Assessment Form

Appendix B: USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment Phase 1

Appendix D: Agencies Correspondence

Appendix E: Public Involvement


vii

Table of Content

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronyms Names

AC Advisory Circulars

ADG Airplane Design Group III ADS Airport Drainage Study

ALP Airport Layout Plan

APE Area of Potential Effect

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility

ARRA American Recovery Act

AST Above ground storage tank

AWOS Automated Weather Observation System

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

CAA Clean Air Act

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CCB Center for Conservation Biology

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe

CWA Clean Water Act

dB Decibel

DNL Day/Night Nosie Level

EA Environmental Assessment

ECL Environmental Conservation Law

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

EWG Environmental Working Group

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FY Fiscal Year

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GSE Ground Support Equipment

HP Horsepower

IAD Washington Dulles International Airport

IPaC USFWS’s Information, Planning and Consultation

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

MDS Map Documented Structures

MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Systems

MPU Master Plan Update

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act


viii

Proposed Action

Acronyms Names

NFIA National Flood Insurance Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHSDA National Highway System Designation Act

NLEB Northern long-eared bat

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NY New York

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYPAD New York Protected Areas Database

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OBPA Ogdensburg Bridge & Port Authority

OGS Ogdensburg International Airport

OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark

OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport

OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration

PAF Public Archeology Facility

PIE St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport

PBB Passenger Boarding Bridges

RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe

RHA Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEQRA New York State Environmental Quality Review Act

SF Square Feet

SFB Orlando Sanford International Airport

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SSA EPA Sole Source Aquifer

STP Shovel Test Pit

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TAP Terminal Area Plan

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TNW Traditional Navigable Waters

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USNRCS U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service

USPS U.S. Postal Service

WQC Water Quality Certificate


1-1

Proposed Action

1. INTRODUCTION The Ogdensburg International Airport (OGS, or the “Airport”) is a public airport that plays a vital role in the regional transportation system for accommodating aviation activity and airline passenger travel, in the North Country Region of New York. The OGS is a commercial service airport classified as Large Business Class in the State Aviation System Plan, recognizing its potential to attract corporate and business activity. OGS offers business and leisure traveler’s convenient access to major urban areas while maintaining the multitude of advantages of a regional airport, including shorter check-in times and less congestion. It is also a U.S. Customs Port of Entry for planes entering the United States from Canada and other foreign countries.

The OGS is owned and operated by the Ogdensburg Bridge & Port Authority (OBPA), servicing the aviation needs of St. Lawrence County, the North Country Region of New York State, as well as areas of Southern Ontario in Canada. The OGS is located approximately two (2) miles southeast of the City of Ogdensburg, within the Town of Oswegatchie, in St. Lawrence County (NY), and located approximately five (5) miles (driving distance) from the Canadian border. The OGS physical address is 5900 State Highway 812, Ogdensburg, NY 13669. Figure 1-1 includes a Location Map showing the general location of the OGS property over a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map.

Currently, the airport activity at OGS consists of a mix of general aviation and scheduled service, mostly used by U.S. and Canadian travelers for general aviation and commercial service and it is served by the following airlines:

• Allegiant Air

• United Airlines (operated by SkyWest Airlines)

This international airport currently offers daily and sub-daily service from an underserved region, including direct flights and connection to the following international airports:

• Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) (daily)

• Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) (daily)

• Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) (sub-daily)

• St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport (PIE) (sub-daily)

The OGS property entails an area of approximately 533 acres. Existing facilities at the OGS include one (1) runway, designated 9-27; one (1) parallel taxiway; two (2) exit taxiways; terminal area consisting of conventional hangar / passenger terminal building; fuel farm; Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF); aircraft parking apron; surface vehicle parking; 10-bay T-hangar, and associated infrastructure. Figure 1-2 includes an Aerial Image with the location of the OGS. An Airport Layout Plan (ALP) was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on May 2015.

In order to continue promoting the economic growth of OGS, maintain revenue and improve airside and landside operations, the OBPA has identified specific opportunities and proposes multiple Terminal Area Improvements in accordance with Terminal Area Plan (TAP), dated December 2019 and prepared by McFarland-Johnson, Inc.

https://www.bing.com/local?lid=YN654x11417383&id=YN654x11417383&q=Ogdensburg+International+Airport&name=Ogdensburg+International+Airport&cp=44.68204116821289%7e-75.4768295288086&ppois=44.68204116821289_-75.4768295288086_Ogdensburg+International+Airport



1-2

Proposed Action


1-3

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\L

oca

tio

n.m

xd

Legend

³Figure 1-1: Location Map

Proposed Action

_̂

Airport Property

Project Study Area

Land Acquisition

0 1,000 2,000500FEET

SCALE

NY

PA

VT

MA

NJ

CT

Canada

NH

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National

Geographic Society, i-cubed

Land Acquisition, Drainage, and Project Study Area

data provided by McFarland Johnson

Airport Property provided by Exhibit A, 2014

State and Province data provided by ESRI1 in = 200 miles

Osw

eg

atch

ieR

iver

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Drainage

Outfall 3

St. L

awre

nce R

iver

Environmental AssessmentOgdensburg International Airport


1-4

Proposed Action


Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\A

eri

al.

mxd

kj

Blevins Bros, Inc.

Car Dealer

St. Mary's

Cemetery

��812

Ogdensburg

Fire Department

Riverside

Cemetery

��68��37

St. Lawrence

River

Osw

egatchieRiver

Runway 9-27

Terminal

Apron

FutureGSE

FutureFuelFarm

FutureTerminal

Taxiway B

Legend

³Figure 1-2: Aerial Location

Proposed Action

Airport Property

Land Acquisition

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement

Proposed Ground Vehicle Pavement

To Be Removed

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,

Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Land Acquisition, Drainage, Proposed Building, Proposed

Pavement, Proposed Ground Vehicle Pavement, To Be

Removed, and Fire Department data provided by

McFarland Johnson

Airport Property Boundary provided by Exhibit A, 2014

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

SCALE

0 600 1,200300FEET

Drainage


1-5


1-6

Proposed Action



1-7

Proposed Action

This document is structured to present an overview of the Proposed Action, regulatory basis and decision making process (Chapter 1); discuss purpose and need of the Project (Chapter 2); provide details of the alternatives (Chapter 3); describe the affected environment (Chapter 4); and evaluate the potential environmental consequences (Chapter 5). The remainder of the EA provides a summary of agency coordination and public involvement (Chapter 6), a list of preparers (Chapter 7), and appendices. The following appendices and studies are included as part of this EA:

• Appendix A: New York State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Assessment Form

• Appendix B: USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

• Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment Phase 1

• Appendix D: Agencies Correspondence

• Appendix E: Public Involvement

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The OBPA has embarked on a cohesive and cost-effective development plan for OGS in order to provide the needed infrastructure to maintain revenue, improve and promote efficient operations, continue supporting the local economy and have the ability to continue offering cost effective air service in the underserved North Country region of New York State and cross border regions of Canada within the airport service area. In result and considering the most recent changes that have occurred at OGS, including increased operations by air carriers utilizing larger Airbus aircraft, OBPA proposes the following Terminal Area Improvements (the “Project” or “Proposed Action”) as presented in the following tables. The footprint of the Project is approximately 13.86 acres. Refer to Figure 1-3 for an illustration of the Proposed Action.

Table 1-1: Proposed Terminal Area Building Improvements

L A

N D

S I

D E

BUILDINGS EXPANSION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION

Terminal Building Expansion:

• Construction of an expanded four (4) gate-passenger Terminal Building with an approximate area of 58,000 square feet (SF), to accommodate current and future demands.

New Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Building:

• Construction of a GSE Building with an area of approximately 5,625 SF, consisting of a maintenance bay, storage space and administrative area.

Table 1-2: Proposed Terminal Apron Expansion and Taxiway Improvements

A I

R D

S I

D E

APRON AND TAXIWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Terminal Apron Expansion:

• Improve and expand for an additional 99,727 square feet (approximately) to the existing and constrained Terminal Apron.

Relocation of Taxiway C:

• Relocation of Taxiway C with to the east providing adequate access to Runway 9-27 as required by FAA AC 150/5300-13A. This would resolve access issues at the intersection of Taxiway C and Taxiway B1.

• Closure and removal of existing (old) Taxiway C.

Reconfiguration of Taxiway A:

• Reconfiguration and realignment of Taxiway A to resolve direct access issue at the intersection with Runway 9-27 as required by FAA AC 150/5300-13A.


1-8

Proposed Action


RUNWAY 9-27

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

TERMINALLAND

ACQUISITION

FUEL FARM

GSE

IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2

REHABILITATE ANDEXPAND CAPACITY

812

68

NON-AERONAUTICALDEVELOPMENT

EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-T

AP.d

wg

Figure 1-3: Proposed Action

1-9

Environmental Assessment

LEGENDWETLANDS

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTYNYSDEC 100' ADJACENT AREA PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPOSED BUILDING

TO BE REMOVEDPROPOSED GROUND VEHICLE PAVEMENT

PROPOSED AIRPORT PROPERTY

david

Typewriter

Proposed Action


1-10

Proposed Action



1-11

Proposed Action

Table 1-3: Proposed Terminal Area Site Improvements L

A N

D S

I D

E

SITE IMPROVEMENTS

Drainage Improvements:

• Modification of existing drainage ditch along the western and southern property limits of OGS, improving conveyance and hydraulic capacity. This drainage ditch currently flows into Outfalls No. 1, 2 and 3.

• Replacement of existing culvert with a new 60-inch culvert, under NYS Route 812 and associated to Outfall No. 3.

• Improvement of Outfall No. 3 currently discharging to Oswegatchie River, south of Ogdensburg Cemetery.

• Closure of existing Outfall No. 2 currently discharging into Oswegatchie River, west of NYS Route 812.

• Elimination of existing stormwater ponds and re-grading.

Relocation of Airport Access Road:

• The new Airport Access Road would provide a new main entrance to the OGS from NYS Route 812. The road would have a length of approximately 1,970 linear feet (0.4 mile) and width of 45 feet, consisting of two (2) asphalt paved lanes undivided (one lane each direction, no median).

• Acquisition of one (1) developed parcel with an approximate area of 2.1 acres and located immediately adjacent to the OGS. Property acquisition is required to accommodate future entrance/exit Airport Access Road relocation, provide access to new development areas and to improve circulation. This property is currently occupied by a medical office building immediately adjacent to the Airport property.

Fuel Farm Relocation: • Relocation of existing Fuel Farm Facility to the north end of the OGS terminal area, north of Taxiway B, east of the proposed GSE Building. The fuel farm consists of two (2) above ground storage tanks (ASTs): a 10,000-gallon Jet-A tank and a 4,000-gallon Avgas tank, both with secondary containment.

Self-Serve Fueling Station:

• Installation of a self-serve fueling station to serve the existing facilities located near the south end of the airport.

As part of the Proposed Action, the new Terminal and GSE buildings would also involve connection to existing on-site utilities such as electricity, water, wastewater, telephone and internet, and site work activities.

The Project cost is estimated at approximately $25 million. The Terminal Area Improvements would be developed in phases.

• Phase 1: Drainage Improvements Fiscal year (FY) 2022

• Phase 2: Terminal Apron and taxiways FY 2023

• Phase 3: Terminal Building Expansion FY 2024


1-12

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is necessary in order to ensure that OGS can meet current and future aviation needs, keeping an appropriate balance between airside and landside capacity.

1.2 REGULATORY BASIS

Airport projects that include federal involvement require an environmental determination. Per statutory and regulatory requirements, the FAA must evaluate the environmental consequences of proposed developments shown on the approved ALP. This involves a systematic and multidisciplinary approach that verifies compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The NEPA is a federal statute that requires federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach for considering the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action and factoring them into the decision-making process. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing NEPA set the standards for NEPA compliance and direct federal agencies to develop their own procedures. FAA Order 1050.1F Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, provides the FAA’s agency-wide policies and procedures for ensuring compliance with NEPA and the CEQ Regulations.

This EA meets the requirements of the NEPA; CEQ regulations; FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, other FAA Orders, guidance, Advisory Circulars (ACs); and New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617. NY-SEQRA Environmental Assessment Form is included in Appendix A.

This EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the Project would not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be issued as per 40 CFR 1508.9. The FONSI would be the final decision document that briefly presents the reasons why the Project would not have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.13). As required by NEPA and the implementing regulations from CEQ and FAA, the alternative of taking no action is evaluated, providing a baseline for comparison of potential impacts from the action alternative (i.e., the Proposed Action).


2-1

Purpose and Need

2. PURPOSE AND NEED The OGS plays a vital role in the transportation and economic development needs for North Country Region of New York, providing airline passenger travel, as well as general aviation operations. The Airport offers low cost air services to business and leisure travelers with convenient access to major urban areas such as New York, Florida and Canada. OGS has been in operation since the 1930s and acquired by OBPA in 1965. Since then, the Airport has been subject to limited improvements or expansions. Last improvements were completed in 2016 and consisted in the expansion of Runway 9-27 and conversion of an existing hangar into the current Terminal Passenger Building.

In 2019, as a result of the changes and forecast conditions, OBPA completed an update to the TAP following the FAA airport planning process for expansion of the OGS. The TAP includes a review of the current airport facilities in consideration of the changes that have occurred and presents potential improvements taking into consideration increased operations by air carriers utilizing larger Airbus aircrafts. The TAP presents airport’s facility requirements necessary to accommodate existing and forecast enplanement and operation demand at OGS. In addition to the TAP, an Airport Drainage Study (ADS) was completed in April 2019 by McFarland-Johnson, identifying various recommendations to better manage stormwater drainage and runoff.

Taking the into consideration recommendations outlined in the TAP and the ADS and ensuring that OGS can meet current aviation needs and continue servicing this region, OBPA proposes the following terminal area improvements.

1. Terminal Building Expansion

2. Construction of GSE Building

3. Drainage Improvements

4. Relocation of Airport Access Road and Parcel Acquisition

5. Fuel Farm Relocation and Installation of a Self-Serve Fueling Station

6. Terminal Apron Expansion

7. Replacement of Taxiway C

8. Reconfiguration of Taxiway A

In addition, the Airport’s Master Plan Update (MPU) and ALP provides additional background information regarding purpose, need and justification for the Proposed Action.

2.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Project is to address facility deficiencies and provide solutions to their aviation needs, such as:

• Safe operating conditions

• Comply with FAA standard

• Improve access to OGS facilities

• Improve airfield operational efficiency


2-2

Purpose and Need

• Provide an updated Terminal Building that meet operational needs

• Accommodate current and forecast demand associated with passengers during peak hours

• Address maneuverability issues at the Terminal Apron

• Provide storage space for GSE

The Project, overall would result in the following benefits:

• Improve safety and security

• Relieve Terminal Building operational capacity constraints

• Enhanced vehicular circulation system

• Promote a more efficient ground operations and improved aviation operations helping OGS to maintain their revenue

• Support current jobs associated with the OGS operations and promote temporary construction jobs within the community

2.2 NEED

The overall need of the Proposed Action is to remedy the lack of adequately sized infrastructure necessary for OGS to support aviation needs and current operations. The need for the Proposed Action is described in detail below with each project element discussed separately.

2.2.1 Terminal Building Expansion

The last expansion to the existing Terminal Building was undertaken in 2016 as an interim solution due to limited local funding. The existing hangar style terminal building was expanded to approximately 10,146 square feet and now includes an expanded arrival departure lounge, offices, a dedicated screening lane and baggage handling equipment. However, due to limited local funding availability, the building expansion was not designed to fully accommodate the functions and to-date space requirements for passengers.

The existing Terminal Building space is inadequate with limited capability to accommodate changes in air service and aircrafts. Multiple concerns have been identified, including:

• Most areas of the Terminal Building are dedicated to certain functions such as passenger ticketing or security screening and are undersized for their dedicated purpose

• The baggage claim device needs to be reconfigured to be entirely indoors

• Currently, half of the baggage claim unit is outside under an awning which causes system failures during adverse weather conditions

• Security and safety concerns with the baggage claim area as passengers and greeters can exit out onto the ramp, which is identified as a secure area according to the Airport Security Plan

• The baggage claim room capacity is undersized for its intended purpose

• During peak hours, there is not enough seating room for passengers

In response to current demands, as well as expected future passenger growth, OBPA proposes the construction of an expanded four (4) gate-passenger Terminal Building with an approximate area of 58,000


2-3

Purpose and Need

SF. The new Terminal Building would provide a better level of services during peak hours, alleviating cramped and congestion in the Terminal Building, improved circulation and address security deficiencies.

2.2.2 Construction of Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Building

The Airport does not have a dedicated building or structure to house, store and maintain the GSE. The GSE is currently housed and serviced outdoors near the Terminal Building on the apron. The lack of adequate storage area for the GSE creates inefficiency and environmental concerns. Furthermore, the current conditions at the Terminal Apron create conflicts between the GSE and aircrafts.

The construction of a standalone GSE building is required, consisting of a maintenance bay, storage space and administrative area. The proposed GSE building location would alleviate the aircraft/GSE conflicts, inefficiency of the apron space, and would create a location to provide GSE storage under roof thus eliminating environmental concerns. Maintenance and service operations would be consolidated in an area away from the Terminal Apron which would enhance safety and increase efficiency.

2.2.3 Drainage Improvements

The OGS property subsurface conditions are characterized by clay soils and a high groundwater table. Stormwater on the property is collected through a series of drains and swales and is directed to one (1) of two (2) detention ponds on the Airport where it can dissipate. Drainage concerns exist at OGS as a result of undersized culverts conveying drainage from the western portion of the airfield and terminal area to the Oswegatchie River. The space and siting requirements of drainage features require that a stormwater management plan be fully integrated into the terminal area planning. Past development at the airport has resulted in a project-by-project approach to stormwater management design, resulting in costly and high maintenance practices.

The Proposed Action consists of a series of drainage improvements at the OGS to fully integrate their stormwater management system with the conveyance and hydraulic capacity to accommodate existing and future terminal area development at OGS. The proposed improvements would be executed to comply with FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5200- 33BD (Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports) and 150/5320-5D (Airport Drainage Design). The following improvements are required:

• Modification of existing drainage ditch along the western and southern property limit of OGS, improving conveyance and hydraulic capacity. This drainage ditch currently flows into Outfalls No. 1, 2 and 3

• Replacement of existing culvert with a new 60-inch culvert, under NYS Route 812 and associated to Outfall No. 3

• Improvement of Outfall No. 3 currently discharging to Oswegatchie River, south of Ogdensburg Cemetery

• Closing of existing Outfall No. 2 currently discharging into Oswegatchie River, west of NYS Route 812

2.2.4 Relocation of Airport Entrance Road and Parcel Acquisition

With the Terminal Plan Improvements presented in this EA, the existing OGS main vehicular entrance and terminal access road needs to be relocated to improve circulation and access and to provide connectivity


2-4

Purpose and Need

to the proposed Terminal Building, GSE Building and fuel farm facility, and existing automobile parking lot. The new Terminal Access Road would maintain connection with NYS Route 812. The OGS main vehicular entrance would be relocated approximately 600 feet to the north from the existing entrance. The road would have a length of approximately 1,970 linear feet (0.4 mile) and a width of 45 feet, consisting of two (2) asphalt paved lanes undivided (one lane each direction, no median).

This action involves the acquisition of one (1) developed 2.1-acre parcel that is located immediately adjacent to the west of the Airport property. Property acquisition is required to accommodate future entrance/exit for the Airport Access Road. This property is currently occupied by a medical office building immediately adjacent to the Airport. The tract of land (parcel) subject to land acquisition is expected to be acquired on a “willing seller” basis and would be owned by OBPA.

2.2.5 Fuel Farm Relocation and Installation of a Self-Serve Fueling Station

OBPA proposes the relocation of the existing Fuel Farm Facility to the north end of the OGS terminal area, north of Taxiway B and east of the proposed GSE Building. The existing fuel farm is located adjacent to the ARFF facility on the south end of the Airport. It consists of two (2) ASTs: a 10,000-gallon Jet-A tank and a 4,000-gallon avgas tank, both with adequate secondary containment. Fuel is delivered to aircrafts via two (2) 5,000-gallon fuel trucks operated by the Airport.

For the fueling trucks to access and service aircrafts and ground equipment at the Terminal Apron, they currently drive along Taxiway A, cross the Runway 9 threshold, and on to the Terminal Apron via Taxiways B1 and C. It is undesirable and unsafe for fuel trucks to access active runways or taxiways to avoid conflicts between aircraft and fuel trucks.

The new location for the fuel farm provides a safe operating condition and eliminates the need of having a fueling truck cross the active runway to fuel aircrafts at the Terminal Apron. The new Fuel Farm would also be accessed through the proposed Airport Access Road. Additionally, installation of a self-serve fueling station (one tank with a capacity of 5,000 gallons) is proposed to serve the existing facilities located near the south end of the Airport.

2.2.6 Terminal Apron Expansion

The existing Terminal Apron is approximately 126,000 square feet to serve A320 operations. Beginning in October 2016, OGS was served by air carriers operating the A320 and nine (9) seat Cessna 402 aircrafts. In May 2019, operations by the Cessna 402 ceased, and were replaced by SkyWest Airlines (operating as United), utilizing a 50-seat CRJ 200 aircraft. This situation has required the need to implement a temporary parking configuration for SkyWest and Allegiant for both airlines be able to continue using the apron simultaneously. However, the available maneuvering space for aircraft and equipment is limited, constrained at the apron and does not meet FAA guidance. FAA AC 150/5360-13A recommends enough spacing to ensure wingtip clearance is always available.

Expansion and improvement of the Terminal Apron is required to eliminate the current operational and maneuverability constraint. This action is also needed to provide additional space for improved parking positions of aircrafts, ensure that parked aircrafts can be maintained outside of the taxilane object free area and vehicle service roads. Furthermore, it would address aircraft maneuverability issues and provide a safe movement of the aircraft, and ground support equipment while providing more efficient operating conditions. This would also provide additional space for aircraft parking.


2-5

Purpose and Need

The A320 and CRJ200 aircrafts are Airplane Design Group III (ADG III) as per the FAA-defined grouping of aircraft types. As noted in AC 150/5360-13A, a wingtip clearance of 25 feet between aircraft, and 45 feet between buildings, would be employed as a minimum. With a maximum wingspan for ADG III aircraft of 118’ and considering two (2) gates under existing conditions, and three (3) gates under future conditions (with one (1) gate likely bounded by a building), the width of the Terminal Apron must be a minimum of 331 feet under existing conditions and 474 feet under future conditions to accommodate the aircraft parking nose-in to the terminal, with a pushback provided prior to departure. Both airlines presently serving OGS have indicated a strong desire to have the ability to power-in and power-out of the terminal without having a push-back provided by a tug on the apron. This requires additional spacing between gates to allow the aircraft to pull into the parking position at an angle. At approximately 124 feet in length, this is approximately six (6) feet greater than the wingspan. Furthermore, additional space to enable the aircraft to maneuver, beyond the 25-foot separation between aircraft, would be required to ensure adequate wing tip clearance as aircraft arrive and depart while other aircraft are on the apron.

2.2.7 Relocation of Taxiway C

Relocation of Taxiway C is proposed to the east to provide adequate access to Runway 9-27 as required by FAA AC 150/5300-13A. The existing location and alignment of Taxiway C results in direct access issues with Taxiway B1 and Runway 9-27. Also, with expansion of the Terminal Apron, Taxiway must be reconfigured and widened in order to address maneuverability issues, better accommodate aircrafts operating at OGS and eliminate direct access from Terminal Apron to Runway 9-27. Once constructed the new taxiway connector, the existing Taxiway C would be eliminated.

2.2.8 Reconfiguration of Taxiway A

The existing taxiway connector results in maneuverability and direct access issues at the intersection with Runway 9-27 as per FAA AC 150/5300-13A. The Taxiway A would be reconfigured to address direct access and maneuverability.

2.3 SUMMARY

Without the critical infrastructure in place, it is difficult for OGS to adequately serve the existing demand for commercial passenger service. The Airport serves the aviation needs of St. Lawrence County, the North Country Region of New York State, as well as areas of Southern Ontario in Canada. OGS offers business and leisure traveler’s convenient access to major urban areas and leisure destinations while maintaining the multitude of advantages of a regional airport, including shorter check-in times and less congestion. Since completion of the previous Master Plan in 2013, there have been many changes at OGS including a doubling of enplanements from 5,120 in 2015 to 10,268 in 2016. The Proposed Action described in Chapter 1 is deemed necessary for the purpose of addressing the established needs of OGS which include: achieving compliance with FAA, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Aviation Bureau engineering design standards and guidelines by addressing identified deficiencies, improving access to the airport facilities, enhancing facility safety and security, and increasing the overall functionality of the airport and accommodating forecasted growth. Upon completion, the projects would achieve the stated goals and would serve to position OGS to meet the existing and future aviation service needs of the St. Lawrence County region. By following the process outlined in FAA Order 5050.4B and Order 1050.1F, it is anticipated that the facility would continue to develop without compromising the integrity of the surrounding environment.


2-6

Purpose and Need



3-1

Alternatives Analysis

3. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This chapter details the alternatives considered and the evaluation process to select the preferred alternative that appropriately addresses the needed facility improvements with the least environmental impact. A total of three (3) alternatives were considered for the proposed terminal improvements or TAP, including the no-build alternative (“No Action”). For the drainage improvements, only the No Action and build alternative have been considered. Each alternative was similarly evaluated with the required degree of analysis to the proposed action and in accordance with the criteria described in the following section.

The three (3) terminal area improvement alternatives include:

• TAP Alternative 1 – No Action

• TAP Alternative 2

• TAP Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative

The two (2) drainage improvement alternatives include:

• Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 – No Action

• Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternatives are selected based upon the evaluation of all the improvements that must be undertaken in order to address the immediate operational and maintenance needs of OGS.

3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following factors were considered in the development and evaluation of the alternatives:

1. Land Use Compatibility: “Is the alternative compatible with on-airport and off-airport patterns of land use?” This criterion evaluates such things as access to the airside movement areas and the local road network, and the degree to which the alternative is compatible with activities occurring in surrounding on- and off-airport lands.

2. Environmental Consequences: “What are the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the alternative?” This criterion takes into consideration foreseen impacts over the human environment and natural features present within the project area.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: “Is the alternative flexible and dynamic in the sense that it could accommodate future changes in demand and additional expansion?” This criterion recognizes the fact that location decisions made today would influence future airport development for many years to come.

4. Operational Efficiency: “Would the alternative contribute to a smoothly functioning airport with efficient movement of aircraft?” This criterion considers whether the alternative makes the best, cost effective and most efficient use of Airport facilities and infrastructure.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: “Does the alternative take a strategic and capital-based approach that allows or creates opportunities for Airport management to increase revenue


3-2


generation and/or diversify revenue sources, thereby improving the overall competitiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Airport?”

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

3.2.1 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 1 – No Action

The passenger Terminal Building is located on the northwest side of the Airport property along New York State (NYS) Route 812. The building footprint occupies approximately 10,100 SF (0.2 acre) and is in operational condition. While the building is in operational condition, it requires improvements in passenger processing areas such as ticketing, baggage handling, security screening, and airline operations, particularly related to constrained space. The existing building space is inadequate with limited capability to accommodate changes in air service and aircraft. Most areas of the Terminal Building are undersized for their designated purpose because they are dedicated to certain functions such as passenger ticketing, or security screening. The baggage claim room capacity is undersized for its intended purpose. In addition, there are security and safety concerns with the baggage claim area as passengers and greeters can exit out onto the ramp, which is identified as a secure area according to the Airport Security Plan.

The No Action Alternative maintains the continuing course of action described above and does not address the deficiencies of the existing terminal area layout. This alternative does not improve level of service, neither alleviate the Terminal Building congestion issues, nor address the operational issues. The existing conditions at OGS can be seen in Figure 3-1, TAP Alternative 1- No Action.

3.2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

• No capital investment required (short-term)

Disadvantages:

• During peak hours, there is not enough seating room for passengers

• Airlines could lose interest to continue servicing at the Airport, resulting in additional economic

pressure to OGS

• Fuel trucks would continue driving across the runway and taxiways

• Increase risk to accidents and spills (environmental impacts) from fueling trucks crossing active

runways and taxiways

• Significant lack of apron depth and flexibility, restricting aircraft maneuverability

• Compromised safety and security

• Lack of critical space in all functional areas of the Terminal Building

• Does not promote more efficient environmental operations

• Lack of compliance with FAA standards

• No expansion capability and unable to accommodate existing and future demands

• Inadequate space or storage for ground support equipment and maintenance

• Limited ability to maintain/increase revenue

RUNWAY 9-27


POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

812

68

EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-T

AP.d

wg

Figure 3-1: TAP Alternative 1 - No Action

3-3Alternatives


RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

EXISTINGDRAINAGE

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2

EXISTINGOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 3

LEGEND

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREARUNWAY SAFETY AREA

WETLANDS

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTYNYSDEC 100' ADJACENT AREA


3-4




3-5


Alternative 1 was assessed against the five (5) evaluation factors; the results are below:

1. Land Use Compatibility: The No Action Alternative does not involve off-site locations and proposes no changes to the existing Airport layout. The Airport is currently fully compatible with on- and off-airport patterns of land use.

2. Environmental Consequences: This alternative does not involve construction impacts over natural or cultural resources; however, it may contribute to potential environmental impacts associated to oil and fuel spills. The No Action Alternative increases the risk of accidents and spills from aircrafts and fuel trucks that currently have to cross an active runway to serve the Terminal Apron, as well from spills of GSE for not having an adaquate area (e.g., building) for storage and routine maintenance. Unneccessary queue time and engine idling would continue as result of fuel trucks having to cross the active runway, which promotes generation of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the lack of apron area requires more maneuverability and increases unnecessary idling and queue time by airplanes and ground service equipment.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: With no development planned, there is no potential to expand or accommodate future demand.

4. Operational Efficiency: The No Action Alternative does nothing to alleviate the current operational issues with a constrained Terminal Building. This alternative does not promote the integration of low-cost energy efficient systems.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: This alternative results in no construction costs; however, it does nothing to maintain or enhance Airport revenues. Additionally, this activity would not promote new jobs.

3.2.2 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 2

The overall design intent of Alternative 2 is to expand functional areas of the Airport and is shown on Figure 3-2, TAP Alternative 2. This alternative proposes an expansion of the facilities to the west end of the Airport and accomplishes the operational deficiencies. Alternative 2 also includes the utilization of the existing passenger facilities where possible, particularly considering the areas that were newly constructed and rehabilitated in 2016. This alternative provides a development location for the terminal area improvements, while still providing the necessary facilities.

Table 3-1: Alternative 2 – Project Elements

ALT. 2 - Project Elements Footprint Area

Within Regulated Wetland Areas

Within Wooded Area

(SF) (Acres) (SF) (Acres) (SF) (Acres)

Terminal Access Road 146,100 3.35 26,136 0.60 43,731 1.0

Terminal Building Expansion 58,000 1.33 9,583 0.22 -- 0

Terminal Apron Expansion 99,727 2.29 27,878 0.64 -- 0

New GSE Building 5,625 0.13 4,792 0.11 5,663 0.13

Fuel Farm Relocation 5,812 0.13 -- -- -- 0

Taxiway C Relocation 24,299 0.56 871 0.02 -- 0

Taxiway A Reconfiguration 25,994 0.60 -- -- -- 0

Construction Buffer N/A N/A 24,829 0.57 N/A N/A

Total (Approx.) 365,557 8.39 94,089 2.16 49,394 1.13


3-6


Detailed descriptions are outlined in the following sections.

3.2.2.1 Terminal Area Building Improvements

Alternative 2 proposes repurposing and expanding the existing Terminal Building by adding an approximately 58,000 SF (1.33 acres) linear concourse with four (4) Passenger Boarding Bridges (PBB) to meet demand. At the eastern end of a shared ramp would be a structure to house the GSE building with an area of approximately 5,625 SF (0.13 acre), consisting of a maintenance bay, storage space, and administrative area.

3.2.2.2 Terminal Apron Expansion and Taxiway Improvements

The Terminal Apron would be improved and expanded an additional 500 feet to the east resulting in a total additional area of 99,727 SF (2.29 acres), alleviating the currently constrained existing conditions. Alternative 2 would provide relocation of Taxiway C to the east providing adequate access to Runway 9-27, resolving access issues at the intersection of Taxiway C and Taxiway B1. Reconfiguration and realignment of Taxiway A would be provided as part of Alternative 2, in order to resolve the existing direct access issue at the intersection of Runway 9-27, as required by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A.

3.2.2.3 Terminal Area Site Improvements

Alternative 2 includes a new Airport access road, drainage modifications, and a new main entrance to OGS from NYS Route 812. The proposed new Airport access road would have a length of approximately 2,730 linear feet and a 45-foot width, consisting of two (2) asphalt paved lanes (undivided). In conjunction with the proposed access road, property acquisition (2.1 acres) would be necessary to accommodate for the future access road entrance/exit at NYS Route 812 and provide access to new development areas as well as improve circulation. The property is subject to land acquisition is expected to be acquired on a “willing seller” and is currently occupied by a medical office building immediately adjacent to the Airport.

The existing fuel farm would also be relocated to the north end of the OGS terminal area for Alternative 2. The new fuel farm location would be north of Taxiway B, and east of the existing Terminal Building and proposed GSE building. The proposed fuel farm would consist of two (2) (ASTs: a 10,000-gallon Jet-A tank and a 4,000-gallon Avgas tank, both with secondary containment. A self-serve fueling station to serve the existing facilities would be located near the south end of the Airport.


Advantages:

• Reutilization and no major modifications to the Airport parking lot

• Easy access to/from runways

• Future available expandability/capacity, particularly on the east end of the Airport

• Increased apron depth and flexibility

• Fuel trucks would have less need to access runways or taxiways to fuel commercial service aircraft

• Relatively simple phasing and continuation of operations during construction

• Improvements on the northern side of the runway are maintained which would decrease cost


3-7


• Self-serve fuel is provided as an option for pilots

• Additional revenue generation opportunities by providing concessions and potentially a restaurant

Disadvantages:

• Fuel trucks must traverse active taxiways and the runway to service turbine engine GA aircrafts

• An L-shaped terminal building increases pedestrian length of travel to walk to access outermost gates.

Alternative 2 was assessed against the five (5) evaluation factors with the following results:

1. Land Use Compatibility: Alternative 2 would enhance and improve the use of land on and adjacent to the Airport.

2. Environmental Impact: Alternative 2 would necessitate the net addition of impervious surfaces, in this case approximately 365,557 SF (8.39 acres) of pavement. Alternative 2 would result in the following environmental impacts: 2.16 acres (94,089 SF) of regulated wetlands, including the removal of 49,394 SF (1.13 acres) of wooded area. Mitigation for tree and jurisdictional wetlands would be required. The estimated impacts (2.16 acres) over jurisdictional (regulated) wetlands does not include impacts (0.47 acre) within isolated wetlands.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: This alternative would relieve Airport capacity constraints, enhance level of service, and accommodate current and expected future demands. Alternative 2 would build out Airport-owned land on the west side of the Airport, while reserving the eastern half for future needs.

4. Operational Efficiency: Alternative 2 would greatly enhance the operational efficiency of the Airport with the above listed improvements.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: The Project cost is estimated to be approximately $24 million. This alternative would improve airside and landside operations allowing OGS to maintain their revenue. In addition, the proposed action has the potential to benefit the local community with the creation of new jobs at the airport during the construction phase.


3-8



TERMINALLAND

ACQUISITION

FUEL FARM

GSE

IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2



RUNWAY 9-27


POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

812

68

EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-T

AP.d

wg

Figure 3-2: TAP Alternative 2

3-9Alternatives


RUNWAY SAFETY AREA


LEGEND


WETLANDS


PROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED BUILDING




3-10




3-11


3.2.3 Terminal Area Plan Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

The overall design intent of Alternative 3 is to expand the functional areas of the Airport as shown on Figure 3-3, TAP Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative. This alternative provides the same facilities and project elements described in Alternative 2, except for the proposed terminal access road. The proposed access road is being shortened from 2,730 linear feet to 1,970 linear feet (footprint reduced) in order to accommodate and move the proposed footprint of the GSE and Fuel Farm to the west. This alternative entails avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts over wetlands and wooded areas, while meeting the purpose and need of the Proposed Action.

Table 3-2: Alternative 3 – Project Elements

ALT. 3 - Project Elements Footprint Area

Within Regulated Wetland Area

Within Wooded Area

(SF) (Acres) (SF) (Acres) (SF) (Acres)

Terminal Access Road 100,905 2.32 5,663 0.13 4,356 0.10

Terminal Building Expansion 58,000 1.33 9,583 0.22 -- --

Terminal Apron Expansion 99,727 2.29 27,878 0.64 -- --

New GSE Building 5,625 0.13 -- -- -- --

Fuel Farm Relocation 5,812 0.13 -- -- -- --

Taxiway C Relocation 24,299 0.56 871 0.02 -- --

Taxiway A Reconfiguration 25,994 0.58 -- -- -- --

Construction Buffer N/A N/A 14,810 0.34 N/A N/A

Total 320,362 7.34 58,805 1.35 4,356 0.10

Project footprint and impacts areas would be further defined and evaluated during the design and permitting phase.


Advantages:

• Enhanced GA terminal

• Reutilization and not major modifications to Airport’s parking lot

• Easy access to/from runways

• Additional revenue generation opportunities by providing concessions, and potentially a restaurant in the Terminal Building

• Future expandability/capacity available, particularly on the east end of the Airport

• Increased apron depth and flexibility


• Relatively simple phasing and continuation of operations during construction

• Moderately inexpensive, by keeping the improvements on the northern side of the runway

• Self-serve fuel is provided as an option for pilots


3-12



RUNWAY 9-27


POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

TERMINALLAND

ACQUISITION

FUEL FARM

GSE

IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2


812

68


EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

LEGEND

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA


SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-T

AP.d

wg

Figure 3-3: TAP Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative

3-13Alternatives



WETLANDS






3-14




3-15


Disadvantages:

• Fuel trucks would still have to traverse active taxiways and the runway to service turbine engine GA aircraft

• An L-shaped terminal building increases pedestrian length of travel to walk to access outermost gates.


1. Land Use Compatibility: Alternative 3 would enhance and improve the use of land on, and adjacent to the Airport.

2. Environmental Impact: Alternative 3 would necessitate the net addition of impervious surfaces, in this case approximately 320,362 SF (7.34 acres) of pavement. Alternative 3 would involve limited wetland impacts and land clearing, involving 58,805 SF (1.35 acre) of regulated wetland (low quality), including 4,356 SF (0.10 acre) of wooded area, approximately. The estimated impacts (1.35 acres) over jurisdictional (regulated) wetlands does not include impacts (0.47 acre) within isolated wetlands. Mitigation would be needed to ensure no net loss in jurisdictional wetland resources. Overall, the Alternative 3 would result in minimal environmental impacts to the human environment.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: This alternative would relieve Airport capacity constraints, enhance level of service, and accommodate current and expected future demands. Alternative 2 would include construction on a portion of the west side of the Airport, while reserving additional area for future needs.

4. Operational Efficiency: Alternative 3 would greatly enhance the operational efficiency of the Airport.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: The Project cost is estimated at approximately $24 million. This alternative would improve airside and landside operations helping OGS to maintain their revenue. In addition, the proposed action has the potential to benefit the local community with the creation of new jobs at the airport during the construction phase.

3.2.4 Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 – No Action

The existing drainage system is impaired by undersized culverts conveying stormwater runoff from the western portion of the airfield and terminal area to the Oswegatchie River. The space and siting requirements of drainage and stormwater management features require that the drainage plan be fully integrated into the terminal area planning. Past development at the Airport has resulted in a project by project approach to stormwater management design. This short-sighted approach has resulted in costly, high maintenance, and perhaps unnecessary stormwater management practices in the past.

The Airport is equipped with stormwater management practices, which direct stormwater runoff east towards the Oswegatchie River. In order to minimize pollutants in stormwater discharges, Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs) at OGS consist of swales, vegetated filter strips, and stormwater ponds to capture sediment and pollutants, reduce runoff and prevent or minimize pollutant runoff from entering downstream water courses. Stormwater ponds are a structural SMP that retain the increase in post-development runoff volume and releases it at the pre-development flow rate.


3-16


OGS currently has two (2) stormwater management ponds on-site. Pond A has an approximate area of 110,767 SF (2.54 acres), is located west of the Runway 9 end and receives runoff from the Terminal Building, Terminal Apron, and parking lot. Pond B has an approximate area of 85,940 SF (1.97 acres), is located south of the runway and west of the automated weather observation system (AWOS). These SMPs require a significant amount of surface area on airport property and typically hold standing water (i.e., Pond B) throughout the year, which is a wildlife attractant that the FAA advises against. According to the ADS, current SMPs do not provide water quality benefit to the OGS and endanger the safety of commuting aircraft, their personnel, passengers, and the environment. Additionally, a survey of the existing airport drainage structures was conducted by Ravi Engineering & Land Surveying on November 9, 2017, with supplemental field survey conducted on February 15, 2018. The survey found that the stormwater pipes discharging to Outfalls 1 and 3 are in deteriorating condition and in need of immediate repair.

The No Action Alternative offers no changes to the existing drainage infrastructure at OGS. This alternative does not alleviate the existing SMP issues and promote lack of stormwater capacity within the existing pipes, deteriorating pipe conditions, or safety and environmental risks associated to the potential wildlife attractants. The existing drainage at OGS can be seen in Figure 3-4, Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 – No Action.


Advantages:

• No capital investment required (short-term)

Disadvantages:

• Costly due to high maintenance and unnecessary stormwater management practices

• Does not alleviate the existing stormwater ponding issues within the Pond A and Pond B

• Lack of stormwater capacity within the existing pipes would not be remedied

• Existing pipes would continue to deteriorate

• Increase risk of safety and environmental issues associated with open water wildlife attractants

• Existing drainage infrastructure does not address proposed conditions under the TAP improvements or provide for future growth at OGS

Alternative 1 was assessed against the five (5) evaluation factors; the results are below:

1. Land Use Compatibility: The No Action Alternative proposes no changes to the existing drainage. The Airport is currently fully compatible with on- and off-airport patterns of land use.

2. Environmental Impact: There would be a safety risk associated to wildlife attractants / collisions, therefore resulting in potential environmental impacts.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: With no changes to the existing overloaded stormwater system, there is no potential to expand or accommodate future demand.

4. Operational Efficiency: The No Action Alternative does address current drainage and wildlife issues and does not satisfy proposed conditions by TAP improvements. It also results in costly, high maintenance and unnecessary stormwater management practice.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: The No Action Alternative results in no construction

costs; however, it results in high operational and maintenance costs for the OGS.

280

28028

0

290

812

OSWEG

ATCHIE

RIVE

R


POND A

SCALE

0 400 800FEET

200

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-D

RAIN

.dw

g

Figure 3-4: Drainage Improvements Alternative 1 - No Action

3-17Alternatives


EXISTINGOUTFALL 3

EXISTINGOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2

EXISTINGDRAINAGE

LEGENDWETLANDS



3-18




3-19


3.2.5 Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Drainage Alternative 2 consists of abandoning or removing the portion of closed drainage system to Outfall 1, directing the net increase in peak flow from Outfall 2 to Outfall 3, and replacing the existing drainage pipes to Outfall 3 so that both stormwater management ponds can be eliminated and stormwater runoff can utilize the direct discharge to Outfall 3. The intent of Alternative 2 is to redirect the increased peak flow from the southern drainage areas to the north to utilize the direct discharge the Oswegatchie River and avoid the required stormwater quantity requirements associated with new construction. Alternative 2 eliminates any potential stormwater easement issues with drainage system removal and construction on off-site cemetery property. Alternative 2 includes the modification of existing drainage/dry swales along the western and southern property limit of OGS, thus improving conveyance and hydraulic capacity.

This alternative includes the replacement of an existing culvert, located under NYS Route 812, with a new 60-inch culvert to continue discharging runoff to Outfall 3. Outfall 3 would be rehabilitated to prevent stream bank erosion. Outfall 1 would be eliminated in this alternative. The culvert connecting the airfield drainage system to the outfall is located under existing burial plots, and removing or replacing the culvert would have extensive and complex construction impacts. The alternative recommends abandoning the culvert in place and redirecting runoff towards Outfall 3. Replacing the existing drainage system components between the airport property and Outfall 2 to accommodate the additional flow is not feasible. The location of Outfall 2 does not meet the definition of a “direct discharge” to the Oswegatchie River. As a result, any increase in stormwater quantity directed to that outfall would have to be mitigated on-site. Remaining pipes that will continue discharging Airport runoff to Outfall 2 should be rehabilitated with a cured-in-place pipe lining to extend their life span.

The proposed drainage system is laid out to connect the three (3) existing systems serving the Airport, which eliminates any crossing conflicts between existing and proposed systems. The combined runoff from the systems is currently discharged to the Oswegatchie River at the same location of the existing system. The elimination of the drainage system to Outfall 1 avoids construction and drainage easement issues with the adjacent cemetery that may arise from removing or replacing that system. The drainage system for this alternative has been conservatively sized for the Proposed Action with the highest contributing peak flow, but also allows for the capacity of the drainage system to be increased if there are future demands requiring additional development of the Airport. Alternative 2 drainage improvements can be seen in Figure 3-5, Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative. This alternative would allow OGS to address the drainage and stormwater requirements for the proposed terminal area improvements. The existing site conditions at OGS and the restrictions set forth by the FAA limit the stormwater practices for this site to those that do not include a permanent open water stormwater pond or infiltration. This Alternative would not add an additional outfall/discharge point and would utilize the existing location of Outfall 3 with a culvert replacement. The activities would occur outside the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of the Oswegatchie River.

Advantages:

• Would eliminate the need for Pond A and Pond B, thus providing a more efficient and integrated stormwater management system

• Lack of stormwater capacity within the existing pipes would be remedied

• Updated pipes adequately sized to address existing and proposed conditions

• Closed stormwater system would minimize risk associated to wildlife attractants

• Integrates TAP improvements and provides for future growth at OGS


3-20



280

28028

0

290

812

OSWEG

ATCHIE

RIVE

R


POND A

SCALE

0 400 800FEET

200

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-D

RAIN

.dw

g

Figure 3-5: Drainage Improvements Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative

3-21Alternatives


IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2


LEGENDWETLANDS



3-22




3-23


Disadvantages:

• None


1. Land Use Compatibility: Alternative 2 enhances and improves the use of land on, and adjacent to the Airport.

2. Environmental Impact: Alternative 2 would have a temporary impact on the environment during the construction process, however in the long-range future this alternative would provide a greater benefit to the overall environment, focusing on water quality, wildlife and aircraft accidents.

3. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Demand: This alternative would allow for future development for increased demand and provide for adequate stormwater design for the TAP improvements.

4. Operational Efficiency: Alternative 2 would enhance the operational efficiency of the Airport.

5. Cost and Revenue Generation Capability: The cost is estimated in approximately $888,000. This alternative would improve existing drainage issues and assist future development eliminating the potential stormwater issues. In addition, the proposed action has the potential to benefit the local community with the creation of new jobs at the airport during the construction phase. Alternative 2 would also reduce maintenance cost to the OGS.

3.3 TERMINAL AREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

The feasibility of the terminal area plan alternatives was measured against a series of criteria consistent

with the proposed purpose and need. The comparison analysis is summarized in the following table.

Table 3-3: Terminal Area Plan Alternative Evaluation Criteria

EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES

Foo

tpri

nt

(Acr

es)

Ap

pro

x. C

ost

(m

illio

ns)

Esti

mat

ed

Co

nst

ruct

ion

D

ura

tio

n

(mo

nth

s)

Leve

l of

Envi

ron

men

tal

Imp

acts

Environmental Impacts

Regulated Wetland (Acres)

Wooded Area

(Acres)

Alternative 1 (No Action)

N/A $0 0 Low 0 0

Alternative 2 8.39 $24 24 – 36 Moderate 2.16 1.13

Alternative 3 (Preferred)

7.34 $24 24 – 36 Low 1.35 0.10

The results of the alternative comparison identified the preferred alternative. During the design and permitting phase, potential impacts would be further defined, evaluated and mitigated as per applicable regulations.

The terminal area plan improvements would be necessary to meet the purpose and need and address the existing and forecasted demands of the Airport. The No Action Alternative does not address the purpose and need. Alternate locations were considered, however were determined to be unviable. Alternate locations for the elements of the Project would be cost prohibitive and would likely have greater environmental consequences as part of the Proposed Action.


3-24


Both TAP alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) would provide the necessary facilities for future operational demand. However, TAP Alternative 3 is chosen as the Preferred Alternative because it would have the least environmental impact while providing the necessary facility needs. Consequently, this alternative would be the most cost effective.

3.4 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

The feasibility of the drainage improvement alternatives was measured against a series of criteria consistent with the proposed purpose and need. The comparison analysis is summarized in the following table.

Table 3-4: Drainage Improvements Alternative Evaluation Criteria

EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES

Lin

ear

Feet

Ap

pro

x. C

ost

(t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Esti

mat

ed

Co

nst

ruct

ion

D

ura

tio

n

(mo

nth

s)

Leve

l of

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Imp

acts

Environmental Impacts (Drainage)

Regulated Wetlands

(Acres)

Wooded Area

(Acres)

Alternative 1 (No Action)

N/A N/A N/A Moderate (Increased risk

of wildlife attractants)

N/A N/A

Alternative 2 (Preferred)

5,874 $888 4 months Low 0.74 0.0

The results of the alternative comparison identified the preferred alternative. During the design and permitting phase, potential impacts would be further defined, evaluated and mitigated as per applicable regulations.

The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need, nor alleviate the existing stormwater pond issues, lack of stormwater capacity within the existing pipes, deteriorated pipe conditions, or safety and environmental risks associated to the potential wildlife attractants.

Alternative 2, as the Preferred Alternative, meets the purpose and need, and addresses the existing drainage deficiencies. Alternative 2 would provide the necessary stormwater management capacity for the proposed TAP improvements (TAP Alternative 3), resulting in less than significant impacts. Consequently, this alternative would be the most cost effective, eliminating the need of costly and high maintenance needs.


4-1 Affected Environment

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes the environmental conditions of the project area. The characterization of the site is based on the information gathered from technical studies, on-site investigations, a review of available and published scientific information, agency correspondence, and discussions with Airport personnel and public officials. Field investigations were conducted during November of 2019 and March of 2020. Information presented herein serves as a basis for the assessment of environmental, social, and economic consequences (refer to Chapter 5) associated with the Proposed Action.

4.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

The area for the project footprint covers approximately 13.86, and 2.1 acres of property acquisition immediately adjacent to OGS western boundary. The OGS is a public general aviation facility located at 5900 State Highway 812, Ogdensburg, New York 13669. The Airport property has an area of approximately 533 acres and is situated within the northern portion of the Town of Oswegatchie, just beyond the limits of the City of Ogdensburg. Refer to Figure 1-1 for Location Map and Figure 1-2 for Aerial Location in Chapter 1. The main access to the Project is through NYS Route 812. The Airport property is classified as public services land use. The OGS is mainly surrounded by commercial developments, cemetery, vacant lands, rural agricultural lands, low density residential, public roads and infrastructure. Table 4-1 provides a description of the project area boundaries.

Table 4-1: Project Area Boundaries

Boundary Description

North • OGS property

• Commercial, residential and vacant lands

• NYS Route 37

South • Airport infrastructure

• Runway 9-27

• Vacant lands

East • OGS Airfield

• NYS Route 68

• Vacant lands

West • Existing Airport development

• Commercial properties

• NYS Route 812

• Ogdensburg Cemetery

• Oswegatchie River

4.1.1 Topography

The project site exhibits a leveled topography, grading towards the north. The existing drainage system

conveys stormwater runoff towards the south and west. The topography in the perimeter of the project

area is influenced by the existing airport development such as surface parking, terminal building, apron,

Runway 9-27, taxiways, taxilanes and other related infrastructure. The majority of the project area lies




within or immediately adjacent to the developed footprint of the existing Terminal Building and Terminal

Apron, and along existing drainage infrastructure.

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biotic resources refer to the various types of flora (plants) and fauna (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, etc.), including state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, in a particular area. It also encompasses the habitats supporting the various flora and fauna including rivers, lakes, wetlands, wooded areas, forests, and other ecological communities. Much of the project area consists of maintained upland grasslands with some wetland patches. Additional nearby habitats include upland and wetland scrublands or wooded areas.

4.2.1 Ecological Communities

Most of the Airport and adjacent areas have been significantly mechanically disturbed by past construction and human activities, including the surrounding urban and rural developments. Taking into consideration that the elements of the Project are proposed within previous disturbed areas and adjacent to the existing OGS landside and airside infrastructure, ecological communities within the project area are restricted and provide limited ecological value. The following includes the vegetation assemblage distribution within the project area and its immediate vicinity.

Table 4-2: Vegetation Assemblage Distribution

Vegetation Assemblages Acres Percentage

1. Maintained grassland (upland) 65.57 71%

2. Hardwood / wooded wetland area 8.91 10%

3. Herbaceous wetland 5.37 6%

4. Urbanized area (Land Acquisition Parcel)

1.89 2%

5. Scrublands / upland wooded areas 4.43 5%

6. Riparian area near Outfall 3 0.09 0.1%

7. Existing man-made drainage features (grassed stormwater ponds and dry swales)

6.52 7%

Total Area 92.78 100% Note: The total area is not the Project footprint or Project development area. OGS property entails approximately 533 acres.

None of these vegetation assemblages self-sustain populations of threatened or endangered species of wildlife and have not been designated as critical habitats by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Most of the habitat at the Airport consists of maintained grassland. Scattered and isolated small herbaceous wetland patches occur, interspersed with paved airfield surfaces. All habitats identified at the Airport are common and not considered sensitive ecosystems within the region.

Refer to Figure 4-1, for distribution of vegetation assemblages within the within the project area and its immediate vicinity.



4.2.2 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

4.2.2.1 State

According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, protected species have not been reported within the project area or immediately adjacent. A response from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) - New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), dated December 16th, 2019, indicated that they had no records of rare or state-listed flora or fauna, or significant natural communities, at or in the vicinity of the Project area. See Chapter 6 (Agency Coordination and Public Involvement) and Appendix D for correspondence from NYSDEC.

4.2.2.2 Federal

The site does not possess a critical habitat designation by the USFWS. According to the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) from USFWS and a data base review conducted in December 2019, the range of the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) includes the vicinity of the Airport. According to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), threatened species are those which are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. The ESA directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened protected species. Section 7 of the ESA, titled “Interagency Cooperation,” is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. Additionally, according to the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) database, there are no records of bald eagle nesting or communal roosting within the OGS property and immediate adjacent surrounding grounds.

4.2.2.2.1 Northern long-eared Bat (NLEB)

The OGS property exhibits a leveled topography with an approximate elevation ranging from 290 feet to 316 feet above mean sea level, and lack of caves, caverns or abandoned mines that could serve as hibernacula for NLEB. According to information published by the USFWS, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) hibernates in caves and mines during the winter. After hibernation, the bat migrates to their summer habitat in wooded areas where they usually roost under loose tree bark on living, dying, or dead trees. The NLEB was listed as threatened under the ESA in May 2015. The NLEB can be found across much of the eastern and north central United States and into Canada. The primary threat to the NLEB is white-nose syndrome. Populations of the NLEB in the Northeast U.S. have declined by 99 percent since symptoms of white-nose syndrome were first observed in 2006. According communication from the USFWS related to previous runway expansion project, they have stated that nearest known occurrence for NLEB is approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the OGS. A final 4(d) rule, published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016, describes measures necessary to provide for the conservation of the NLEB, such as:

• Avoid tree removal within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31; and avoid tree removal within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time

Actions that do not follow this rule would be considered an “incidental take” and are prohibited. As per USFWS recommendations and response, a time of year restriction should be implemented for tree removal, from October 1st to March 31st, to prevent potential impacts to the NLEB.

RUNWAY 9-27


POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

TERMINAL

LANDACQUISITION

FUEL FARM

GSE

IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2


812

68


EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\V

EGET

ATIO

N.d

wg

Figure 4-1: Vegetation Assemblage Distribution


LEGEND

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY

NYSDEC 100' ADJACENT AREA PROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED BUILDING



HARDWOOD WETLAND / WOODED AREA (8.9 ACRES)GRASSLAND (65.6 ACRES)

URBANIZED AREA (1.9 ACRES)HERBACOUS WETLAND (4.8 ACRES)

UPLAND WOODED AREA (4.4 ACRES)

PROJECT STUDY AREA (90.2 ACRES)

DRAINAGE DITCH/SWALE

STORMWATER POND (4.1 ACRES)

david

Typewriter

5

david

Typewriter

Affected Environment



4.3 COASTAL ZONES AND BARRIERS

The federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) protects and improves the nation’s coastal barrier islands. The Airport and off-airport projects are not located in the New York Coastal Barrier Area. OGS is located approximately 55 miles away from the closest protected coastal resources areas. CBRA regulations do not apply to the Proposed Action.

4.4 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES

There are no properties or resources within the project area or immediately adjacent to the OGS property, protected under Section 4(f) as defined by FAA order 1050.F. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is currently codified as 49 USC Section 303(c) and has the intent to preserve publicly owned parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance, or any historic site of national, state, or local significance. The Proposed Action neither involve activities in public use recreational lands subject to Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA).

According to the New York Protected Areas Database (NYPAD), there are no public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, conservation lands or historic sites within the vicinity of the Airport; therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation is not required. Nearest parks, public recreational facilities and public lands in the vicinity of the OGS include the following:

• Maple City Trail: 0.5-mile west

• Father Martin Memorial Park: 1-mile north

• Crescent Park: 1.25 miles northwest

• Hamilton Street City Park 1.4 miles north

• New York Avenue City Park: 1.35 miles northwest

• Riverside Avenue City Park: 2 miles northwest

• Galop Island 4 miles north

• St. Lawrence Golf Course 5 miles southwest

• Eel Weir State Park 4 miles south

• Fish Creek Wildlife Management Area 9 miles southwest

• Grass River Boat Launch Site 12.4 miles southeast

• Upper and Lower Lakes Wildlife Management Area 12.3 miles southeast

The project does not involve the physical use of any Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources. Refer to Figure 4-2 for Section 4(f), Section 6(f) and NYS Protected Areas Map.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9325.html

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\S

ect

ion

4(f

).m

xd

Maple

City

Trail

St. Mary's

Cemetery

��812

Riverside

Cemetery

��68��37

St. Lawrence

River

Osw

egatchieRiver

Runway 9-27

Taxiway B

Terminal

Apron

FutureGSE

FutureFuelFarm

FutureTerminal

Cresent

Park

Father Martin

Memorial Park

Hamilton

Street

City Park

New York

Avenue

City Park

Riverside

Avenue

City Park

Jefferson

Avenue

City Park

Legend

³Figure 4-2: Section 4(f), Section 6(f), and NYS Protected Areas

Affected Environment

Airport Property

Land Acquisition

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed

NY Protected Area Database





Pavement, Proposed Ground Vehicle Pavement, and To Be

Removed data provided by McFarland Johnson


NYPAD provided by NY Natural Heritage Program

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

SCALE

0 600 1,200300FEET

Drainage


4-9



4.5 FARMLANDS

There are no farming activities within the project area or on the OGS property. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 C.F.R. § 658 1994, requires federal agencies to consider project alternatives that will minimize unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

For the purposes of the FPPA, farmland refers to soils classified as prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. According to the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, accessed in February 2020, various soils in the project area are characterized as prime farmlands, prime farmlands if drained, or farmlands of statewide importance. Figure 4-3 depicts the soils within the project area and adjacent agricultural districts.

According to the NRCS, the soils in the project area characterized as prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance are:

• Flackville loamy fine sand (FkA), (FkB) - Prime Farmland

• Muskellunge silty clay loam (MsA) - Prime farmland if drained

• Adjidaumo silty clay (Ak) - Farmland of statewide importance

• Stockholm loamy fine sand (Sg) - Farmland of statewide importance

Most of these soils within the OGS property have been altered (e.g., filled, compacted, disturbed) by the existing footprint of the Airport and past projects. Therefore, it is highly unlikely these soils maintain farmland characteristics. Furthermore, the FPPA does not apply to land already committed to “urban development or water storage”. The Airport property has already been previously committed to current airport utilization and development; therefore, would not be subject to the FPPA. Copy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form is included in Appendix B.

According to the Development Authority of the North Country (DANC), the Airport property and project area have the following classifications as per the New York State Office of Real Property Services, Property Type Classification and Ownership Codes, Assessor’s Manual:

• 483 - “Converted residence” (Parcel for land acquisition)

• 843 - Public Services: “Nonceiling Railroad”

• 844 - Public Services: “Air”

The public services category refers to parcels used in or as necessary adjunct to the provision of public services.

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\A

gri

cult

ura

l D

istr

ict.

mxd

FutureFuelFarm

FutureGSE

Future Terminal

MsA

W

Bo

Uf

Ak

FkB

Ak

Ak

Ak

Ak

FkA

Sg

Ue

Sg

MsA

FkA

Sg

Ak

HkE

Ak

Ak

Ak

Sg

Sw

FkA

HeB

MsA

Ak

MsA

FkA

FkA

FkA

Rd

FkA

Sg

FkA

FkA

NhA

Sg

HeC

FkA

FkA

Ua

HnA

MsA

FkA

W

FkA

Am

Sw

Mh

AkSg

Sg

FkA

FkB

Legend

³Figure 4-3: Soils and Agricultural Districts Map

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the

GIS User Community

Land Acquisition, Drainage, Proposed Building, Proposed Pavement,

Proposed Ground Vehicle Pavement, and To Be Removed data

provided by McFarland Johnson


Soil Rating provided by the USDA

Agricultural Districts provided by the CUGIR

Aerial Imagery provided by Woolpert, 2017

Airport Property

Agricultural Districts

Land Acquisition

��812

Runway 9-27

TWY B

TW

Y B

1T

WY

C

Terminal

ApronT erm

ina

l

TW

Y B

2

TWY A

GA

Apron

Soil Rating

All Areas of Prime Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland if Drained

Not Prime Farmland

0 250 500125FEET

SCALE


Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Drainage

Affected Environment4-13

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed

Osw

egatchie R

iver



4.6 HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 requires that federal agencies such as the FAA consider the effects of their actions on historic properties via consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). According to 36 CFR Part 800, an historic property is “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).” The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is responsible for maintaining historical, archaeological, and cultural resources sites throughout the state.

A Public Archeology Facility’s (PAF) Phase 1 Archaeological Survey (Phase 1) was conducted for the Proposed Action by John Ferri, M.A., from Binghamton University in November 2019 (Appendix C). The Survey area subject to the Phase 1 consisted of approximately 21.7 acres. Refer to Project Maps on pages 33 to 35 of Appendix C. During Phase 1, a total of 215 shovel test pits (STPs) were conducted within the area of potential effect (APE) and identified in the PAF report. The STPs included most of the areas for the outfall replacement route, terminal and apron expansion, taxiway, access road, GSE building and fuel farm.

4.6.1 Negative Results

Subsurface testing did not identify any archaeological sites within the project impact areas. The setting of the APE overlooking the Oswegatchie River suggested a moderate probability of locating precontact artifacts. However, no precontact artifacts were recovered within the APE. While historic artifacts were recovered, most were from the B-transect which was shown to be heavily disturbed and filled in relation to road and utility construction. The historic artifacts recovered outside of fill deposits lack the diversity and density necessary to designate a site. The artifacts were not associated with a historic standing structure or map documented structures (MDSs) and most likely represent random refuse related to the historic railway and roads. No historic sites were identified within the project area.

The PAF report concluded that the Proposed Action would not impact significant cultural resources and recommended no further archaeological work within the project limits.

4.7 LAND USE

According to the Land Use Map (Figure 4-4) from St. Lawrence County, City of Ogdensburg and Town of Oswegatchie, the project area is classified as “Public Service”, with the exception of the 2.1 acre-parcel subject to land acquisition, and the adjacent property west of NYS-812 where existing drainage outfalls (1, 2, and 3) are located. The 2.1-acre parcel is classified as “Commercial” and adjacent property west of NY-812 is classified as “Community Service”.

Land uses immediately adjacent to the Airport property include commercial, residential and vacant land to the north along NYS Routes 68 and 812, agricultural and residential land to the east, several large parcels of agricultural land to the south, and community services land (cemetery) and the Oswegatchie River to the west.

During the preparation of the EA, no records were found regarding planned developments adjacent to the Airport. The Town of Oswegatchie has in place a Site Plan Review and Subdivision Local Law for the review of site plans and building permit approvals that would include any project adjacent to the Airport. Additionally, the St. Lawrence County Planning Board reviews special use permits, use and area variances and site plans for the Town of Oswegatchie. St. Lawrence County also regulates land use management



practices within the seven (7) agricultural districts which were set up to protect farmland from potentially conflicting projects, land zoning that is restrictive against farming, and harmful tax assessments.

4.7.1 Industrial and Commercial Activities Characteristics

Within the City of Ogdensburg and the surrounding Town of Oswegatchie, there are many small commercial and several industrial activities. Immediately north of the Airport’s surface parking is Belvins Bros, Inc. (car dealership). Directly north of Airport property on Route 68 is Howland Properties LLC, a wholesale pump equipment and supply company. Less than two (2) miles from the Airport, there are two (2) major industrial operations at the Port of Ogdensburg, which include Hoosier Magnetics, the international leader in the production of hard ferrite powders, and Lehigh Hanson, one of the largest construction materials companies in North America.

Industrial and commercial properties within one (1) mile of OGS, consist of, but are not limited, to the following:

• Belvins Bros, Inc.

• MPH Ogdensburg Properties, LLC

• McDonalds Real Estate

• Aldi’s, Inc, discount grocer,

• Daland Corporation, restaurant management company

• Wilcom Holdings

• Real Estate Development

• Toped Development

• G & S Estates, Inc.

• Atlantic Ref & Marketing

• Paolo’s Little Italy

• Ultramar Energy, Inc.

• Prime LLC

Industrial and commercial properties within one (1) mile of OGS, consist of, but are not limited, to the following:

• Belvins Bros, Inc.

• MPH Ogdensburg Properties, LLC

• McDonalds Real Estate

• Aldi’s, Inc, discount grocer,

• Daland Corporation, restaurant management company

• Wilcom Holdings

• Real Estate Development

• Toped Development

• G & S Estates, Inc.

• Atlantic Ref & Marketing

• Paolo’s Little Italy

• Ultramar Energy, Inc.

• Prime LLC

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\L

an

d U

se2

.mxd

GA

Apron


Legend

³Airport Property

Land Acquisition

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed








Land Use data provided by St. Lawrence County

��812

��68��37

Oswegatchie River

SCALE

0 420 840210FEET

Runway 9-27

Taxiway B

Terminal

Apron

Null

Agricultural

Residential

Vacant Land

Commercial

Recreation and Entertainment

Community Service

Public Service

Figure 4-4: Land Use Map

FutureFuelFarm

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Drainage

FutureGSE

FutureTerminal

Affected Environment4-17

Land Use



4.7.2 Residential Areas, Schools, Places of Worship, Outdoor Areas

Residential areas, schools, places of worship and publicly owned outdoor areas are primarily located in the City of Ogdensburg with a few exceptions. The City of Ogdensburg is primarily a single-family residential community. The Ogdensburg City School District and the Ogdensburg Wesleyan Church are located less than a mile northwest of the Airport property. The St. Lawrence-Lewis Board of Cooperative Educational Services Northwest Technical Center is located less a mile north of the Airport property. Immediately west of the Airport and NYS-812 is the Ogdensburg Cemetery, along the Oswegatchie River. The Notre Dame Catholic Cemetery is located west of the Oswegatchie River.

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH AND

SAFETY RISKS

This section provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the area surrounding the Airport. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Factfinder were used to examine the population profile, characteristics and trends for the region.

There are no potential environmental justice areas immediately adjacent to the project area. The NYSDEC Environmental Justice Maps identified a potential environmental justice area approximately one (1) mile northeast of the project area in the City of Ogdensburg and Town of Lisbon.

The Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN) generated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was accessed on February 18th, 2020. The EJSCREEN identified a low-income population in the 80-90 percentile approximately 0.75 mile from OGS and identified the project as within the 50-60 percentile zone. The EJSCREEN also identified the project site as being within the 50-60 percentile zone of minority populations.

According to the American Factfinder American Community Survey, population has decreased by approximately one (1) percent since 2010 in St. Lawrence County, from 111,944 in 2010 to 110,817 in 2017. More specifically, the population of Oswegatchie has remained relatively stable between 2010 and 2017, from approximately 4,397 people in 2010 to 4,375 in 2017.

The City of Ogdensburg’s population decreased approximately 2.49 percent from 2010 to 2017, from 11,128 to 10,851, respectively. The Town of Lisbon’s population fell by approximately 0.54 percent between 2010 and 2017, from 4,102 in 2010 to 4,080 in 2017. Both the City of Ogdensburg and the Town of Lisbon are located in St. Lawrence County.

The tables below present a brief compilation of demographic profiles for the City of Ogdensburg, the Town of Oswegatchie, the Town of Lisbon and St. Lawrence County. The socioeconomic characteristics included are population, race and ethnic composition, median household income, travel time to work, and population in the labor force.



Table 4-3: Demographics – Race Data

Sources: American Fact Finder 2010 Demographic Profile Data; 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Table 4-4: Demographics – Economic Data

Sources: American Fact Finder 2010 Demographic Profile Data; 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

4.9 WATER RESOURCES

4.9.1 Wetlands

Wetlands occurs within the OGS boundaries. Most of the project area has been subject to jurisdictional wetland determination approval by the USACE on May 19, 2015, under case number 2001-01199. Most of these areas were also previously reviewed by NYSDEC under case number 6-4064-00201/00004. The jurisdictional wetland determinations (JDs) are based on field wetland delineations performed by McFarland-Johnson. The wetland delineations were conducted through field investigations of vegetation, soils and hydrology in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 USACE Manual) and 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (2012 Regional Supplement). In the vicinity of mapped NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, the 1995 New York State Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual (1995 NYSDEC Manual) was also consulted.

Categories City

of Ogdensburg Town

of Oswegatchie Town

of Lisbon

St. Lawrence

County

Population 11,128 4,397 4,102 111,944

White 9,828 4,302 3,998 105,064

Black or African American

810 14 12 2,420

Asian 88 22 7 1,085

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

1 2 0 36

American Indian/Alaska or Hawaiian

91 21 20 1,135

Other 178 6 18 670

Minority Percentage

11.88% 1.51% 1.43% 5.09%

Categories City

of Ogdensburg Town

of Oswegatchie Town

of Lisbon

St. Lawrence

County

Population 11,128 4,397 4,102 111,944

Median Household Income

$38,901 $56,919 $61,131 $48,330

Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes)

13.6 19.0 20.8 20.9

In Labor Force 48.7% 54.0% 62.7% 53.4%



An additional wetland field screening was conducted by McFarland-Johnson, Inc., in March 2020 to evaluate the current site conditions and review areas previously not subject to regulatory review (i.e., wetlands “Q”, “T”, “U” and “V”). Based on the previous wetland delineations and most recent the wetland field screening, there are a total of nine (9) wetland areas within the project development area and its immediate vicinity. The locations of the previously delineated wetlands and inferenced wetlands are presented in Figure 4-6. The following table presents breakdown of the wetland areas in the immediate vicinity of the project area.

Table 4-5: Summary of Wetland Areas in the Vicinity of Project Development Area

Wetland ID Wetland

Classification Acreage

NYSDEC Regulated

USACE Regulated

G PEM 0.60 No Yes

O PEM 0.40 No No

P PEM 0.13 No Yes

Q PEM 0.34 No No

R PEM 0.08 No No

S PSS/PEM 4.36 No Yes

T PFO 0.34 No Yes

U PSS 8.02 Yes Yes

“U” 100 feet Adjacent Area

-- 9.52 Yes No

V PEM 0.01 Yes No

Total Wetland Area* 14.28 -- --

Total NYSDEC Regulated Area -- 17.54 --

Total USACE Regulated Wetland Area -- -- 13.46

* Total Wetland Area does not include NYSDEC 100 feet Adjacent Area.

Wetland Classifications: PEM: Palustrine Emergent PSS: Palustrine Scrub/ Shrub Wetland PFO: Palustrine Forest Wetland

4.9.2 Surface Waters

Natural water bodies do not occur within the footprint of the Proposed Action. The Oswegatchie River flows south to north along and near the western limits of existing Outfall No. 3. The river is considered a Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW) of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act (RHA) and a Waters of the US under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Oswegatchie River is designated a Class B Surface Water as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 701. In addition, the reach of the Oswegatchie River within the vicinity of the project area is considered navigable by NYSDEC standards. Based on this information, the reach of the Oswegatchie River within the vicinity of the project area is considered regulated under Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 15.

Runoff from upland areas drain into man-made drainage channels and a closed stormwater management system, ultimately discharging into the Oswegatchie River. Based on field observations, the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, and interpretation of Article 15 of the ECL, none of the man-made drainage ditches and stormwater ponds are considered protected water of the State under jurisdiction by the NYSDEC. None of these resources are considered navigable waters of the U.S.



(This page is intentionally left blank

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\S

tate

an

d F

ed

era

l W

etl

an

ds

an

d S

urf

ace

Wa

ters

2.m

xd

MsA

NhA

³



GIS User Community





NYSDEC Wetlands provided by CUGIR

NYSDEC Wetland Checkzones provided by NYS GIS Clearinghouse

NWI Wetland Types provided by USFWS


Land Acquisition

Airport Property

NYSDEC Wetlands

NYSDEC Wetlands Checkzones

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed

��812Osw

egatchie R

iver

Runway 9-27

Terminal

ApronTerm

ina

l

GA

Apron

0 250 500125FEET

SCALE

Figure 4-5: State and Federal Wetlands and Surface Waters Inventory

NWI Wetland Types

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Legend

FutureFuelFarm

TWY B

TW

Y B

1

TW

Y C

TW

Y B

2

TWY A

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Drainage

FutureGSE


FutureTerminal

4-23Affected Environment

RUNWAY 9-27


POND B

WETLANDS

WETLANDR

WETLANDP

WETLANDS

OSWEG

ATCHIE

RIVER

WETLANDO

812

WETLANDT

WETLANDG

WETLANDU

WETLANDU


POND A

WETLANDQ

WETLANDV

SCALE

0 500 1000FEET

250

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\W

ETLA

ND.

dwg

Figure 4-6: Delineated Wetlands

Environmental Overview


LEGEND

WETLANDS (ISOLATED / NON-JURISDICTIONAL)

EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY

NYSDEC 100' ADJACENT AREA

FEATUREIDENTIFICATION

ISOLATED /NON-JURISDICTIONAL

(ACRES)

USACE REGULATED(ACRES)

NYSDEC REGULATED(ACRES)

WETLAND G --- 0.60 ---WETLAND O 0.40 --- ---WETLAND P --- 0.13 ---WETLAND Q 0.34 --- ---WETLAND R 0.08 --- ---WETLAND S --- 4.36 ---WETLAND T --- 0.34 ---WETLAND U --- 8.02 8.02

WETLAND U 100'ADJACENT AREA --- --- 9.52

WETLAND V --- 0.01 ---TOTAL: 0.82 13.46 17.54

1. WETLANDS P AND R SHOWN AS DELINEATED IN APRIL - JUNE, 2014 ANDSUBJECT TO USACE FJD ISSUED MAY 19, 2015.

2. WETLAND G,O AND S SHOWN AS REDELINEATED IN JUNE, 2018 ANDSUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER USACE FJD ISSUED MAY 19, 2015.

3. WETLANDS T AND U SHOWN AS DELINEATED IN JUNE, 2018 ANDSUBJECT TO JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS BY NYSDEC AND USACE.

4. WETLANDS Q AND V SUBJECT TO FORMAL DELINEATION ANDJURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS BY THE NYSDEC AND USACE.

WETLANDS (NYSDEC)

WETLANDS (ACOE)

WETLAND DELINEATION AREA (179.46 ACRES)

WETLANDS (INFERRED)

david

Typewriter

25



4.9.3 Groundwater

The Airport does not rest over an EPA designated SSA, or NYSDEC designated Primary or Principal Aquifer. Groundwater serves as an important potable water supply for many individual households, small communities, and larger municipalities. Potential impacts from airport development projects can include reduced ground water recharge and potential contamination through chemical, toxin or other pollutant releases.

The EPA Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) program was established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). According to the EPA, an SSA is defined as one that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water for its service area, and wherein which there is no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer become contaminated. The SSA program allows for EPA review of federally funded projects that have the potential to affect designated SSAs and their source areas.

The nearest aquifer is the Northern Tug Hill Glacial Aquifer SSA (ID SSA76) and is located around 50 miles away (southwest0 from the OGS.

4.9.4 Floodplains

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), as well as overseeing the federal floodplain management programs and flood hazard mapping. Federal flood hazard areas are identified on community specific Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).

According to the Flood Insurance Rate (FIRM) Map, Panel 3607080025C, the Project is located in an area subject to minimal flooding (i.e., Zone X). Flood Zone A along the Oswegatchie River is not on Airport property. Above ground structures are not proposed within Zone A. The 100-year flood zone is shown on Figure 4-7, FEMA Flood Hazards.

4.9.5 National and State Forests, Wilderness Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Areas designated as national or state forest, wilderness areas, or wild and scenic rivers are not present within the OGS or immediately adjacent.

Based on the Development Authority of the North Country and the Internet mapping Application (IMA), the closest wildlife management areas are located over five (5) miles away from the Project.

• Fish Creek Wildlife Management Area 9 miles southwest

• Upper and Lower Lakes Wildlife Management Area 12.3 miles southeast

According to the U.S. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, no designated wild and scenic rivers are present in the immediate vicinity of the OGS. (Reference: https://www.rivers.gov/documents/nwsrs-map.pdf)

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9325.html

https://www.rivers.gov/documents/nwsrs-map.pdf

https://www.rivers.gov/documents/nwsrs-map.pdf

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\F

EM

A.m

xd

MsA

NhA

³



GIS User Community




Approximate Zone A Floodplain created by McFarland Johnson

based on 5/1/1985 FEMA FIRM 3607080025C



Land Acquisition

Airport Property

Approximate Zone A Floodplain

Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed

��812Osw

egatchie R

iver

Runway 9-27

Terminal

ApronTerm

ina

l

GA

Apron

0 250 500125FEET

SCALE

Figure 4-7: FEMA Flood Hazard

Legend

FutureFuelFarm

TWY B

TW

Y B

1

TW

Y C

TW

Y B

2

TWY A

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Drainage

FutureGSE


FutureTerminal

4-29Affected Environment


5-1 Environmental Consequences

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the anticipated environmental, social, and economic consequence of the Proposed Action. Information pertaining to the environmental consequences was obtained through an alternative analysis, evaluation of conceptual plan, on-site investigations, review of published information, agency correspondence, and discussions with the Airport personnel and public officials. The design and the various alternatives developed is the result of a cohesive and integrated planning effort, minimizing impacts by the post development condition. The following table presents, in a comparative form, the level of impacts per each alternative.

Table 5-1: Level of Environmental Consequences per Alternatives

KEY CRITERIA - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Selection Matrix – Level of Direct Impacts

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (No Action) (Expanded TAP) (Preferred)

MEET PURPOSE AND NEED NO YES YES

CU

LTU

RA

L

RES

OU

RC

ES Archeological No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Historic Properties No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Section 4(f) No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Section 6(f) No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

NA

TUR

AL

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT

Biological Resources (e.g., Flora and Fauna)

Moderate (wildlife attractants)

Moderate (land clearing)

Low

Protected species No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Wetlands No Impacts 2.90 acres 2.09 acres (Low)

Surface Waters No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Groundwater No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Floodplains No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Coastal Resources, Barriers and Sanctuaries

No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Wilderness Areas No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Natural Resources and Energy Supply Low Low Low

HU

MA

N E

NV

IRO

NM

ENT

Air Quality Low Low (Temporary) Low (Temporary)

Land use No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Farmlands No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Noise No Impacts Low (Temporary) Low (Temporary)

Hazardous Materials (e.g., risk for spills) Moderate Low Low

Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks

Moderate (socioeconomic)

No Impacts No Impacts

Traffic and Surface Transportation No Impacts Low (Temporary) Low (Temporary)

Light Emission and Visual Impacts No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Solid Waste Management Low Low Low

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Not significant Not Significant Not Significant

TAP Alternative 1 (No Action) does not meet and address the needs of the OGS. The No Action alternative assumes that the Proposed Action is not implemented and the conditions at the Airport would remain unchanged as to-date, including risk of accidents and spills associated to fueling trucks crossing active runways; safety and environmental risks associated to wildlife attractants and existing drainage ponds; negative socioeconomic impacts limiting the ability of OGS to continue providing low cost services in the



North County Region. Despite that TAP Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need, it would result in larger environmental impacts. Alternatives 2 has been dismissed. Therefore, TAP Alternative 2 is not required to be further discussed in this chapter. For details of the evaluated alternatives refer to Chapter 3.

The TAP Alternative 3 incorporates Drainage Improvements - Alternative 2 as the Proposed Action, and minimizes environmental impacts creating a balance between pre-development (No Action) and post-development conditions, almost resulting in the same level of impact as the No Action alternative. Therefore, for the purpose of this chapter, the discussion of the environmental consequences and mitigation measures is focused on the TAP Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) integrating proposed drainage improvements (Drainage Alternate 2), both combined as the Proposed Action. TAP Alternative 3, as the Proposed Action, is compared to the No Action (TAP Alternative 1) throughout this chapter as per FAA Order 1050.1F, Section 6-2.1.f.

The potential impacts from the Proposed Action are discussed in the following sections and quantified to the maximum extent as possible. In areas where quantitative measures cannot be provided, qualitative assessments are provided. The following resources are not present within the project area and were not evaluated further:

• Cultural Resources

• Protected Species

• Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)

• Groundwater

• Floodplains

• Coastal Resources, Barriers and Sanctuaries

• Wilderness Areas

• Wild and Scenic River

• Farmlands

After analyzing the results and data collected as part of the environmental planning process and compared to the No-Action, it is concluded that due to the nature and location of the Project and implementation of site-specific best management practices (BMPs), the Proposed Action would result in limited environmental impacts, not significant to the natural and human environment. Necessary measures and BMPs would be established to further minimize and mitigate any environmental impacts from the proposed action may have.

5.1 AIR QUALITY

Potential impacts on air quality from the Proposed Action is assessed by evaluating whether it would cause an exceedance over the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

5.1.1 General Conformity Regulation

The National Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59) added section 176(c)(5) to the Clean Air Act (CAA) to limit applicability of the conformity programs only to areas designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the CAA and maintenance areas established under section 175A of the CAA. Therefore, only actions which cause emissions in designated nonattainment and maintenance



the CAA. Therefore, only actions which cause emissions in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to the regulations. In addition, the regulations recognize that the vast majority of federal actions do not result in a significant increase in emissions and, therefore, include a number of exemptions such as de minimis emission levels based on the type and severity of the nonattainment problem.

The Airport is located in St. Lawrence County outside of nonattainment or maintenance areas. St. Lawrence County has been is designated by EPA as in attainment for all criteria pollutants according to the EPA Greenbook1, accessed on March 12, 2020. This information is also confirmed thought the EPA Counties Designated Nonattainment Map2 for CAA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the Project does not seek to increase landside or airside capacity, including an increase of surface vehicles. As described in Chapter 2, the purpose of the Proposed Action is to address current facility deficiencies and provide solutions to their aviation needs.

5.1.2 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Air Quality

Construction of the Proposed Action would result in temporary and short-term changes in air emissions from sources such as exhaust emissions from non-road construction equipment, site clearing and grading. On-road vehicles include those associated with transport and delivery of supplies, materials and equipment to and from the site, and construction worker trips. Additionally, fugitive dust emissions would occur from site preparation, land clearing, material handling, equipment movement on unpaved roads and evaporative emissions from the application of asphalt paving.

The Proposed Action is anticipated to result in short-term, non-significant impacts on air quality at the OGS. This impact would occur intermittently during the approximately 24 months of construction activities involving earthwork associated with land clearing, excavation, grading and construction of buildings, drainage improvements, and other Project elements as described in Chapter 1. Particulates would be the main air pollutant of concern for the construction phase. Construction activities would generate both coarse and fine particulate emissions from land clearing, soil excavation, grading and sloping, and small-scale road crossing construction by the drainage improvement. However, the Project would be developed by phases and the amount of ground surface exposed at the same time would be limited. This help to control and reduce the particulate emissions associated to exposed soil. To provide a conservative estimate of particulate matter (PM) emissions potentially emitted during the construction phase, the annual emissions of total suspended particulates generated from construction activities were calculated using the emission factor as per the EPA final report “Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations” (USEPA, 1995).

Table 5-2: Estimate of Annual Particulate Emissions from Construction

Total Project Area (acres)

Exposed Area (acres)

Estimated Construction

Duration (months)

Emission Factor (tons/acre/month)3

Control Efficiency

(%)

Total Suspended Particulate Emissions

(tons/year)

7.34 7.34 24 1.2 80 106

1 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html 2 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/map/mapnpoll.pdf 3 Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations (USEPA, 1999)

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/map/mapnpoll.pdf



Non-road construction vehicles would temporarily emit pollutants during construction of the Project. Pollution emissions from construction vehicle or equipment were calculated using the EPA Diesel Emission Quantifier (DEQ). The DEQ is an interactive, web-based too that is used to evaluates clean diesel projects for medium – heavy and heavy-heavy duty diesel engines, and estimates potential baseline emissions for NOx (nitrogen oxides), PM2.5 (particulate matter two and one half micros or less in width), HC (hydrocarbons) and CO (carbon monoxide). CO, NOx and PM2.5 are considered “criteria” air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA has set NAAQS for these pollutants (https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table). As presented in the following table, NOx, PM2.5 and CO does not exceed the NAAQs levels established by EPA.

Table 5-3: Estimate of Annual Non-Road Emissions of Pollutants During Construction4

Class / Equipment / Engine Type

Pre-Estimated No of Vehicles

/ Engines

Horsepower (HP)

Fuel Type

Estimated Fuel Volume

Estimated Annual

Usage Hours

Approximate Annual Baseline of Construction Vehicles

NOx PM2.5 HC CO

Excavators 2 175 Diesel 6,063 1,092 0.6 -- -- 0.3

Off-highway Trucks

3 750 Diesel 43,422 1,641 6.3 0.5 0.4 5.1

Paving Equipment

1 175 Diesel 1,473 622 0.2 -- -- 0.1

Trenchers 1 750 Diesel 1,463 593 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6

Cranes 1 175 Diesel 4,403 990 0.2 -- -- 0.1

Other Const. Equipment

2 300 Diesel 6,012 606 0.6 0.1 -- 0.4

Tractors / Loaders / Backhoes

1 100 Diesel 1,472 1,135 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Cement & Mortar Mixers

1 75 Diesel 137 275 -- -- -- --

Plate Compactors

1 6 Diesel 82 815 -- -- -- --

Rollers 1 100 Diesel 2,216 760 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Signal Boards 2 25 Diesel 265 535 0.1 -- -- --

Sweepers / Scrubbers

1 300 Diesel 1,500 1,220 0.4 -- -- 0.1

Tractors / Loaders / Backhoes

1 100 Diesel 1,472 1,135 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Total (tons) 9.5 0.7 0.5 7

According to the EPA-DEQ, pollutant emissions are below the de-minimis thresholds, and therefore, no significant impacts to air quality are expected to result from the Proposed Action.

The emissions during construction would be below the established de-minimis. A general conformity determination is not required for the Proposed Action and no adverse air quality impacts would be expected from implementation of the Proposed Action.

4 https://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/index.cfm?action=main.home

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

https://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/index.cfm?action=main.home



5.1.3 Proposed Action - Operation Phase – Air Quality

No changes to local air quality are expected during the operational phase. Since the Proposed Action would not increase or alter aircraft operations or passengers or induce the need to change the aircraft fleet, aircraft emissions would continue as to-date and similar to the No Action alternative.

In addition, the Proposed Action has been considered within the context of greenhouse gas emissions. See Section 5.3 for further discussion of GHGs and climate.

5.1.4 Mitigation Measures – Air Quality

To ensure impacts remain at or below less-than-significant adverse levels, emissions would be further minimized and reduced trough the implementation of BMPs and reasonably available control measures, such as:

• Construction sequencing

• Minimization of the amount of exposed soils at any given time during construction activities

• Water spray for dust suppression and prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne

• Suspend or adjust intensity of earthwork during periods of sustained high wind speeds (e.g., 30 mph and over), as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

• Maintaining vehicles in good working conditions

• Limit engine idling by turning off engines after three (3) to five (5) minutes of inactivity

• Decreasing vehicle speed limits while onsite to reduce fugitive dust generation and obeying posted vehicle speed limits while off-site

• Construction contractors would be required to use properly maintained and operated construction equipment

• Truck would not be loaded with fill borrow material or construction debris to their maximum hauling capacity

• Use tarp covers on trucks transporting construction materials and construction debris to and from the site

• Re-vegetate exposed soils following completion of construction activities in designated areas

These best management practices would minimize any air quality effects associated with construction of the Project. Additionally, exposed soils would quickly re-vegetated following completion of construction activities in designated areas.

5.1.5 Significant Impact Threshold – Air Quality

Taking into consideration the scope of work and associated air emissions, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA

Order 1050.1F and does not have the potential to exceed the NAAQS established by the EPA.



5.1.6 No Action - Air Quality

The No Action alternative assumes that the Proposed Action is not implemented, therefore temporary emissions associated to construction activities would not occur. In regard to operation phase, overall air quality and emissions would remain unchanged and continue as to-date.

5.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The area where the terminal area improvements are proposed corresponds to a tract of land designated for airport use. Overall, this area has been historically subject to airport operations; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to sensitive natural resources or habitats with high ecological value.

A variety of low-quality and fragmented habitats subject to human and airport activities occur within the Project footprint. Example of these activities include periodic maintenance of drainage infrastructure and grasslands as per FAA requirements. Woody areas and small scattered wetland patches are encroached by current airport footprint, public infrastructure and neighboring urban developments. Land surrounding the Airport consists of fragmented urban green spaces; mixed deciduous and oak-pine forests interspersed with residential and commercial development and agricultural lands.

Biological resources within the Project footprint are limited. The following table presents the main vegetation assemblage to be impacted by the Project footprint.

Table 5-4: Vegetation Assemblages Distribution within Project Footprint

Vegetation Assemblages

Project Footprint

(Acres) Percentage

TAP

1. Maintained grassland (upland) 6.05 82%

2. Hardwood / wooded jurisdictional wetland area 0.04 0.5%

3. Herbaceous jurisdictional wetland 0.97 13%

4. Urbanized area (Land Acquisition Parcel)

0.18 2%

5. Scrublands / wooded areas 0.10 1%

Subtotal 7.34 100%

DR

AIN

AG

E 6. Riparian area near Outfall 3 0.00 0%

7. Existing man-made drainage features (grassed stormwater ponds and ditch)

6.52 100%

Subtotal 6.52 100%

Total Area 13.86 100% Notes: Areas are approximate. Total Area combines estimated footprint from TAP – Alternative 2 and Drainage Improvements Alternative 2. OGS property entails approximately 533 acres.

These areas have low and limited ecological function and value; therefore, substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species’ habitats or their populations is not anticipated.



Based on the above and measures to be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect biological resources of high ecological value.

5.2.1 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, protected species have not been reported within the project area or immediately adjacent; therefore, no impacts anticipated to State protected species. A response from the NYSDEC - NYNHP, dated December 16th, 2019, determined that there were no findings of rare or state-listed flora or fauna, or significant natural communities in the project area.

Based on the IPaC from USFWS, the area of the Project or its immediate vicinity does not possess a critical habitat designation. According to communication from the USFWS related to previous and most recent completed OGS runway expansion project, they have stated that the nearest known occurrence of federally protected species outside the Project is the NLEB, at approximately 1.2 miles northwest from the OGS. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to federally protected species.

In addition, according to the CCB database, there are no records of Bald Eagle nesting or communal roosting within the OGS property or immediate adjacent surrounding grounds.

5.2.2 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Biological Resources

No impacts to critical habitats, sensitive ecosystems or protected species would occur during the TAP construction phase.

The construction of the Project is estimated to require approximately 4,356 square feet (0.10 acre) of tree clearing. The USFWS has indicated that no additional presence/absence studies would be required if tree clearing is completed as per their recommendations. For wetland impacts refer to Section 5.11. Refer to Appendix D for a copy of the USFWS documentation.

5.2.3 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Biological Resources

No impacts to critical habitats, sensitive ecosystems or protected species would occur during this phase.

5.2.4 Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources

In order to further avoid or minimize the possibility of incidental impacts to the NLEB, the following measures would be implemented as per USFWS Final 4(d) rule, published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016:

• Tree removal restrictions would be followed from October 1st to March 31st, to prevent potential impacts to the NLEB

Prior to removal of any tree clusters a field inspection would be conducted to discard the presence of maternity roosting. The following USFWS recommendation would be followed if the field conditions become applicable.

• Avoid tree removal within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree during the pup season (June 1 through July 31)



• Avoid tree removal within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time of the year

Other mitigation measures and BMPs to be followed include:

• Maintain a buffer between the wetland areas not to be impacted

• Land clearing and grubbing would be performed in such a manner as to minimize damage outside the project footprint

• Maintain construction activities within authorized project boundaries

• A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be developed and implemented for this project

5.2.5 Significant Impact Threshold – Biological Resources

Taking into consideration the scope of work, its location and the limited biological resources present, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential for:

• Long-term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species from a large project area

• Adverse impacts to special status species, such as state species of concern, species proposed for listing, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles, or their habitats

• Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species’ habitats or their populations

• Adverse impacts on a species’ reproductive success rates, natural mortality rates non-natural mortality rates (e.g., road kills and hunting), or ability to sustain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance

5.2.6 No Action – Biological Resources

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action assumes that the existing Airport footprint and drainage infrastructure would remain unchanged if Proposed Action is not implemented. However, the No Action increases the risk accidents and spills (indirect environmental impacts) associated to fueling trucks crossing active runways and taxiways and does not promote efficient environmental operations. Furthermore, does not alleviate the existing stormwater ponding issues within the Pond A and Pond B, increasing the risk for safety and environmental issues associated to wildlife attractants and ponds.

5.3 CLIMATE

Current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are typically caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel, by airport vehicles and GSE, electricity and heating, and jet fuel for auxiliary power units (APUs). Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are released into the air when fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, in furnaces and to power vehicles at the Airport.

The design of the Terminal Building would involve the modernization or retrofitting of the existing power, heating and cooling systems with the integration of low-cost energy efficiency MEP system. Also, with the relocation of the fuel farm to the north of Runway 9-27 and close to the Terminal Apron, fuel trucks would



not have to cross the active runway, resulting in less queue time and engine idling. The Project would provide fuel trucks direct access to aircraft fleet and ground service vehicles, promoting the minimization of GHG emissions from unnecessary vehicle idling and queue time. Additionally, the proposed expansion of the Terminal Apron would provide better aircraft maneuverability and access, promoting the reduction of unnecessary idling and queue time by airplanes and ground support equipment.

The number of flights, fuel composition and consumption or type of aircraft using the airfield would continue as to-date and no changes are assumed. Therefore, any GHG emission as the result of the Project would be considered less than significant. Also, since Proposed Action involves a limited increase of building square footage and increase in energy demand would be negligible.

5.3.1 Mitigation Measures

To further minimizes the potential of GHG the following mitigation measures would be promoted during the design phase:

• Integration of low-cost energy efficiency measures (e.g., building insulation)

• Design MEP systems to minimize operating costs while providing the highest level of control over the interior environment of the building

• Inclusion of “smart” and energy efficient building elements as part of the design such as natural lighting, LED luminaries and variable shading among others

• Reduce energy consumption by monitor the efficiency of heating, ventilation, and cooling systems

5.3.2 No Action – Climate

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. This scenario assumes that the existing Airport footprint would remain unchanged without addressing the deficiencies of the existing terminal area layout, promote improvements to level of service or address current operational issues. The No Action Alternative would continue promoting unnecessary vehicle idling and queue time from fuel trucks crossing the active runway, and due maneuverability issues from aircraft and GSEs at the existing Terminal Apron. The No Action Alternative does not consider integration of low-cost energy efficiency MEP system, nor promote minimization of GHG emissions.

5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

The FAA 1050.1F Desk Reference states that the EA should describe anticipated waste to be generated as a result of the Proposed Action; waste handling and disposal requirements; identify if waste disposal would impact the capacity of the disposal facility; and determine whether the Proposed Action would interfere with ongoing remediation of contaminated sites within the project area or in the immediate vicinity.

According to the EPA, New York Environmental Remediation Database and other data bases such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – PFAS Contamination Map, there are no records of the presence or reported contamination at the project area. Additionally, no records of ongoing remediation site were found on the New York Environmental Remediations Sites Map. Based on the EPA National Priority List and Superfund Alternative Sites, no sites are present within one (1) mile of OGS.



5.4.1 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Hazardous materials / Solid Waste

Construction-related activities under the proposed action have the potential to generate non-hazardous solid waste on site. However, solid waste generated during construction is anticipated to be a minor contributor to overall solid waste generated in the region and would not result in adverse impacts. Excavated soils would be reutilized on-site to the maximum extent possible and in accordance with site-specific design specifications. Excess soils could also be reutilized at other areas within the OGS, if warranted.

Staging, operation and maintenance of construction equipment always have the potential for accidental releases of vehicle fluids. Proper vehicle maintenance and inspection would reduce this potential, and adverse impacts are not anticipated.

Construction waste and debris would be disposed of in accordance with state and local regulations. Wood debris would be generated from the hardwood vegetation removal and limited land clearing associated with construction of the terminal access road. The contractor would be responsible for chipping vegetative debris. Unsuitable and non-recyclable / re-suable material would be disposed of at an appropriately licensed landfill according to current regulation. Following completion of construction, the proposed improvements are not expected to result in a significant increase in solid waste.

5.4.2 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Hazardous / Solid Waste

No changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions. During the operational phase, similar direct, long-term and less-than-significant adverse impact on solid waste and hazardous materials are expected to remain or continue at OGS. Operation of the Proposed Action would generate a consistent, but limited quantity and type of solid waste on a routine basis. Solid waste generally consists of routine office waste and other domestic items left behind by passengers and container waste associated with GSE maintenance activities. Solid waste would continue to be collected weekly in designated dumpsters and transferred to an appropriate municipal solid waste landfill.

Minimal quantities of hazardous materials would be stored at the GSE Building. Typically, hazardous materials would include pest control, weed management, batteries, vehicle fluids, oils, fuel and lubricants. A qualified private contractor would provide disposal services of routinely generated used oils. Spent vehicle batteries would be exchanged and recycled. Anticipated future hazardous material and solid waste generation would be a minor contributor to overall solid waste generation in the area and would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with solid waste quantities or management.

5.4.3 Mitigation Measures / Pollution Prevention

To further avoid and minimize the risk of unanticipated incidental impacts the following pollution prevention and mitigation measures would be implemented:

• Dispose of debris and solid waste generated by the Project according to applicable federal, state and local regulations

• Re-use excess soils on-site to the maximum extent possible

• Stage and operate construction equipment in designated areas

• Perform construction vehicle maintenance and inspections to reduce the risk for accidental spills



• Perform proper OGS’s vehicle maintenance and routine inspections to reduce the risk for incidental releases of vehicle fluids

• Follow manufacturer’s specifications when maintenance equipment or storing hazardous material (e.g., batteries, fluids, lubricants, solvents, paints, etc.)

• Implement spill and leak prevention and response procedures for construction equipment

• Maintain spill kits to rapidly respond to and limit impacts from accidental releases of vehicle fluids

• Report releases of regulated quantities and perform cleanup according to applicable regulatory requirements

• Manage solid wastes in designated areas and establish routine pickup for disposal according to applicable regulations

5.4.4 Significant Impact Threshold – Solid Waste

Taking into consideration the scope of work, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential to:

• Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws or regulations regarding hazardous materials and/or solid waste management

• Involve a contaminated site (including, but not limited to, a site listed on the NPL)

• Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous waste

• Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of solid waste or use a different method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity

• Adversely affect human health and the environment

Additionally, the Proposed Action would promote more adequate space and good practices for storing, staging, recycling and managing hazardous material and solid waste.

5.4.5 No Action – Hazardous material and Solid Waste

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action assumes that the existing Airport footprint and drainage infrastructure would remain unchanged. With the No Action alternative similar direct, long-term and less-than-significant adverse impact on solid waste and hazardous materials would remain as to-date. Similar to the Proposed Action, the OGS would continue generating a consistent quantity and type of solid waste on a routine basis. However, with the lack of adequate space and a GSE building, the capability and good practices for storing, staging, recycling and managing hazardous material and solid waste would continue to be limited with the No Action, including GSE maintenance activities.

5.5 LAND USE

TAP improvements are proposed within the OGS boundaries. Proposed drainage (off-site) improvements would not require the modification of existing drainage easements or public right-of ways. Therefore, the Proposed Action is compatible with current land uses. Also, implementation of the Proposed Action would



not disrupt established communities or induce negative socioeconomic impacts. The Proposed Action would have no impact or promote changes in regard to land use designations, nor prevent use at adjacent areas. The tract of land (commercial) subject to land acquisition is expected to be acquired on a “willing seller” basis and would be owned by OBPA. This parcel would be used for the construction and operation of the new access road entrance, without altering adjacent land uses. Consequently, no significant impact to land use compatibility is anticipated with implementation of the Proposed Action. Furthermore, the Proposed Action is in agreement and follows the Town of Oswegatchie and Lawrence County Planning Board rules and regulations. Town of Oswegatchie has in place a Site Plan Review and Subdivision Local Law for the review of site plans and building permit approvals that would include any project adjacent to the Airport. The St. Lawrence County Planning Board reviews special use permits, land use, area variances and site plans for the Town of Oswegatchie. The St. Lawrence County also regulates land use management practices within the seven (7) agricultural districts which were set up to protect farmland from potentially conflicting projects, land zoning that is restrictive against farming, and harmful tax assessments.

5.5.1 Significant Impact Threshold – Land Use

Taking into consideration the scope of work and the limited parcel acquisition, potential effects over land use would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F.

5.5.2 No Action – Land Use

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action assumes that the existing Airport footprint and drainage infrastructure would also remain unchanged. Neither the No Action and the Proposed Action promote changes in regard to land use designations, nor prevent use at adjacent areas.

5.6 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY

National Grid provides electric service to the area. St Lawrence Gas provides natural gas service to the City of Ogdensburg; however, the supply lines do not extend along NYS Route 812 so there is presently no natural gas service available within the terminal area. Water at the Airport is currently provided via a well system; however, plans have been developed for the extension of municipal water from the City of Ogdensburg.

The Proposed Action would use readily available natural resources for construction of the Proposed Action. The Project would use a relatively small amount of readily available natural resources for the proposed improvements. The new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems would be designed to minimize operating costs while providing the highest level of control over the interior environment of the terminal. Utility savings are realized by using high efficiency heating and cooling equipment and the latest technology to control the systems. Since the Proposed Action involves a limited increase of building square footage at OGS, any increase in natural resources and energy supply demand during construction and operation phase would be negligible.

5.6.1 Proposed Phase - Construction Phase – Natural Resources and Energy Supply

Construction activities would not require a significant use of natural resources or significant demand of energy supply. Most of the construction equipment to be used is self-powered and not depending of local



public infrastructure. However, if additional source of power or electricity would be provided by the existing OGS facility’s infrastructure and through portable power generators.

5.6.2 Proposed Phase - Operational Phase - Natural Resources and Energy Supply

No significant changes expected between pre-development and post-development conditions.

5.6.3 Significant Impact Threshold – Natural Resources and Energy Supply

Taking into consideration the scope of work, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential to cause demand to exceed available or future supplies of natural resources and energy supply capacity.

5.6.4 No Action – Natural Resources and Energy Supply

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action assumes that the existing Airport footprint remain unchanged without addressing the deficiencies of the OGS. This alternative does not promote the integration of energy efficient systems and the adoption of more efficient technology to reduce energy losses or consumption.

5.7 NOISE

This section includes the analysis of the potential noise impacts by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to increase aircraft operations, nor involves changes to runway lengths, runway alignments, instrument procedures, navigational equipment, or other factors that affect airfield capacity and alter current noise levels. Therefore, noise emissions generated by the Proposed Action and the continuing operation of the Airport would not result in impact on land uses surrounding the airport. The Proposed Action does not involve alteration or modification to Runway 9-27 and any of the project elements would not result in a change to the current noise contours for OGS as shown in Figure 5-1 (Noise Contour Map). Table 5-5 describes the nearest noise receptors to the project area at the OGS. Figure 5-1 also shows nearest noise receptors.

Table 5-5: Nearest Noise Receptors to Project Area

Receptors Description

Residential • Located south of the Airport, on the west side of NYS Route 812 and approximately

2,640 feet (0.5 mile) away from the project area.

Commercial

• The nearest commercial property (Brevis Brothers, Inc.) is located on NYS Route 812, at approximately 300 feet (0.05 mile) west of the proposed Terminal Building expansion.

Institutional

• The Ogdensburg Free Academy is the neatest school, located north of NYS Route 37 and approximately 2,112 feet (0.4 mile) from the project area.

• The Ogdensburg Wesleyan Church is the nearest religious place, located at approximately 3,696 feet (0.7 mile), north of the Airport.

Recreational • Apple City Trail is located west of Oswegatchie River and at approximately

2,112 feet (0.4 mile) from the project area.

Do

cum

en

t P

ath

: K

:\O

gd

en

sbu

rg\T

-18

37

2.0

6 T

AP

EA

\Dra

w\G

IS\N

ois

e.m

xd

GA

Apron


Legend

³Proposed Building

Proposed Pavement


To Be Removed








Noise Contours provided by INM 5/2015

��812

��68

��37

Osw

egatchieRiver

SCALE

0 400 800200FEET

Runway 9-27

Taxiway B

Terminal

Apron

Airport Property

Land Acquisition

Noise Contours

DNL 55 dB

DNL 60 dB

DNL 65 dB

DNL 70 dB

DNL 75 dB

Figure 5-1: OGS Noise Contour Map

FutureFuelFarm

Outfall 1

Outfall 2

Outfall 3

Drainage

FutureGSE

FutureTerminal

Environmental Consequences5-15



5.7.1 Proposed Action - Construction Phase - Noise

Temporary increase in levels of background noise would result from construction activities, particularly from the operation of heavy equipment, truck traffic, and other construction activity. Temporary increase in noise levels main be noted in areas in immediately adjacent to the Project. As a result of the proposed construction activities, minimal closures of developed areas and pavements are anticipated at the OGS, which would lead to limited variations in operations in the vicinity of the Terminal Apron.

The existing runways and taxiways would remain operational throughout the duration of the construction phase. Construction activities may be audible from nearby residences and businesses. However, the effects are considered to be short-term, temporary, intermittent and depend upon the nature of the activities occurring at a particular moment. Construction noise would be also dependent on the location and functions of the equipment.

Noise levels from typical construction equipment are included in the following table.

Table 5-6: Noise levels of Typical Construction Equipment

Source: EPA "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1.



According to the NYSDEC Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts”, at distances greater than 50 feet from a sound source, every doubling of the distance produces a six (6) decibels (dB) reduction in the sound (“Sound Level Reduction Over Distances”). Therefore, a sound level of 70 dB at 50 feet would have a sound level of approximately 64 dB at 100 feet. At 200 feet, sound from the same source would be perceived at a level of approximately 58 dB.

Based on the lands adjoining the OGS, the setbacks from the Project and distance from the potential sources of sound (e.g. construction equipment), the temporary noise to be generated by the construction of the Project would not result in significant adverse noise impacts to nearest receptors.

Construction activities would be carried out during normal daylight hours and a portion of the Terminal Apron expansion work would be conducted at night to limit impacts to airfield operations. Night work would occur as transitional periods rather than full phases of work. Additionally, construction equipment would be operated in compliance with OSHA standards. Construction contract documents would require construction equipment to be properly equipped and maintained in order to minimize off-site construction noise impacts in accordance to ECL and NYSDEC Program Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts.

5.7.2 Proposed Action - Operation Phase - Noise

Once the construction phase is finalized the noise levels would return to current conditions and continue as to-date’s pre-development phase, similar to the No Action alternative. Noise Contours for OGS would remain as shown in Figure 5-2.

5.7.3 Significant Impact Threshold – Noise

Taking into consideration the scope of work, its location, distance from sensitive receptors and no changes in airport capacity or aircraft fleet, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not crossed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential to increase noise by Day / Night Noise Levels (DNL7)1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that would be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the No Action alternative.

5.7.4 Mitigation Measures - Noise

To further minimize and limit possible impacts, various BMPs would be put in place such as:

• Use of noise attenuation devices in construction equipment

• Heavy machinery to be used would be maintained in optimal operating conditions to control noise

• Maintain mufflers and sound shielding on construction equipment

• Provide routine maintenance to equipment according to the manufacturer’s specifications

• Minimize equipment idling and shut down construction equipment when not in use

• Operate construction equipment according to the manufacturer’s specifications

• Construction activities would be carefully coordinated with Airport FBO and the contractor(s)

• Notices to Airmen (NOTAM’s) would be issued by Airport management as needed

• The construction sites would be marked and barricaded in accordance with current FAA standards



Based on the information above, it can be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any significant noise impacts during any phases of construction or operations. Construction contract documents would require construction equipment to be properly equipped and maintained in order to minimize off-site construction noise impacts.

5.7.5 No Action - Noise

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action assumes that the no construction activities would be performed; therefore, related temporary increase in noise level would not be generated. Similar to the Proposed Action, noise contours for OGS would remain as shown in Figure 5-2.

5.8 SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS

The Project does not have the potential to adversely affect socioeconomic conditions in surrounding communities and maintain a balance between the natural and physical environments. On the contrary, the OGS plays a vital role in the transportation and support the economic needs of the local community and for the North Country Region of New York, offering low cost air services to business and leisure travelers with convenient access to major urban areas such as New York, Florida and Canada.

The scope of the Project does not have a regional impact and would not promote shifts in populations, incomes, and growth patterns; public service demands; or negative pressure over business and economic activity, disruption to established neighborhoods, urban proliferation or significant changes in transportation patterns. The Proposed Action does not require alterations to public services including fire and police protection, education and utility services or businesses.

5.8.1 Proposed Action - Industry, Employment and Income

The Proposed Action would result in positive socioeconomic impact. During the construction phase temporary jobs would be created, supporting the local economy. With the Proposed Action, the OGS would continue to support existing jobs, local economy and accessibility of low-cost fares.

The Proposed Action would not require alterations to public services including fire and police protection, education and utility services, businesses, or employment opportunities.

According to the job creation formula provided by the U.S. White House under the American Recovery Act (ARRA), the following is used to estimate potential jobs that may be created as result of the Proposed Action:

• $92,000 of government spending creates one (1) job year

o 64 percent of the job-years represent direct and indirect effects

o 36 percent of the job years are induced effect

Applying the ARRA formula to the estimated construction cost ($25 million), the Proposed Action has the potential to create the following job estimates (cumulative):

• Up to 272 job years

o Approximate Direct and Indirect: 174

o Approximate Induced effect: 98



5.8.2 Proposed Action - Community Tax Base

No significant changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions. The Project is located mostly on Airport property and is not anticipated to negatively affect landowners, and therefore would not produce a substantial change in the community tax base. One property is to be acquired and is by mutual agreement between OBPA and the property owner. Property acquisition by OBPA would result in less than significant impacts regarding the collection of real state property and school taxes by the St. Lawrence County.

5.8.3 Proposed Action - Environmental Justice

No changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions. According to the information provided in Section 4.10, environmental justice areas in St. Lawrence County are at a low rate of 5.09% and are remote from the project areas. No adverse effects are anticipated by the Proposed Action. As previously stated, one property is being acquired through mutual agreement. The proposed property acquisition would not create displacement of a disadvantaged community. The Proposed Action would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community and would not cause relocation of a community business. Therefore, it can be concluded that disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects are not anticipated to occur among minority or low-income populations as a result of the Proposed Action.

5.8.4 Proposed Action - Local Traffic Patterns

No changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions. The Proposed Action would create temporary and short-term traffic impact during the construction phase for the replacement pipes under NYS Route 812. This impact would only be during construction and no long-term impact is anticipated. More details on the traffic specifics are discussed in Section 5.9.

5.8.5 Proposed Action - Children’s Health and Safety Risks

No changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, defines the risks to children’s safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to touch or ingest including the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, and the soil we use to grow food.

The Proposed Action has been evaluated for their potential to have a disproportionate effect on children's environmental health or safety, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, and noise. It has been concluded that the Proposed Action is not of the nature or magnitude to have an adverse effect upon the health and safety of children.

5.8.6 Significant Impact Threshold

In accordance with the FAA Order 1050.1F, potential effects would be less than significant, and the Proposed Action does not cross the Significant Impact Threshold. The Proposed Action does not involve or would not have the potential to:

• Induce offsite developments through establishing projects in undeveloped area



• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community

• Cause housing relocation

• Cause relocation of community businesses that would cause severe economic hardship for the community

• Permanent disruption of local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the levels of service of roads serving the airport and its surrounding community

• Produce a substantial change in the community tax base

The Proposed Action promotes positive socioeconomic benefits, supporting economic growth and the ability to OGS continue providing low cost services in the North County Region and the opportunity to remedy the lack of adequately sized infrastructure necessary to address aviation needs and Airport operations.

5.8.7 No Action - Socioeconomic

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action alternative assumes that the Proposed Action is not implemented and existing conditions would remain unchanged. The No Action has the potential to result in negative socioeconomic impacts, limiting the ability to OGS continue providing low cost services in the North County Region and the opportunity to remedy the lack of adequately sized infrastructure necessary for OGS to support aviation needs and current operations. The alternative does not promote the economic stability for OGS and restrict the ability to maintain revenue and improve airside and landside operations.

In addition, the No Action do not support current jobs associated with the OGS operations, nor promote temporary construction jobs within the community.

5.9 TRAFFIC

The Proposed Action involves the replacement of the existing 15” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert to Outfall 3 with a 60” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert. The significant increase in pipe size is necessary to properly convey the increase in estimated peak flow rate from the proposed TAP improvements (Alternative 3). The proposed drainage improvements would occur within existing easements and public right-of-way.

Traffic would be temporarily affected by the Proposed Action only during the culvert replacement across NYS Route 812. Construction work within public right-of-way would be coordinated with NYSDOT.

5.9.1 Proposed Action – Construction Phase – Traffic

According to communication from NYSDOT Region 7, received on March 25, 2020, the new drainage pipe under NYS Route 812 would need to be installed via boring and jacking method. Therefore, the need of full road closure and temporary open cut (trench) across the road is less likely. With the boring and jacking method, a temporary traffic detour would not be necessary. However, temporary lane closure would be required during construction to manage local traffic during the construction activities.

A construction Traffic Control Plan (TCP) / Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) for the work zone would be implemented during the culvert replacement by the contractor to mitigate vehicles that use NYS Route 812



in the event that construction would impact the roadway travel lanes or shoulders. The TCP and MOT would comply with NYSDOT standards. NYS Route 812 is classified as a Principal Arterial and is comprised of two (2), 12-foot travel lanes (undivided) with seven (7) foot shoulders for a total paved roadway width of approximately 38 feet. The roadway has an annual average daily traffic of 3,455 vehicles per day. In the event that construction would impact the roadway, the TCP / MOT would utilize half-width construction maintaining one lane of alternating traffic through the work area. Flaggers or a temporary traffic signal would be utilized to direct traffic through the construction area.

In the event that a temporary open cut of the total paved roadway width is necessary to remove and replace the existing culvert, a full detour would be required to redirect traffic around the work area. As the worst case scenario, the full detour of traffic would redirect vehicles around the east side of the Airport. This method utilizes NYS Route 37, State Route 68, and County Route 4. This detour would temporarily increase the travel time from the intersection of NYS Route 812 and the onramp to eastbound NYS Route 37 to the intersection of NYS Route 812 and County Road 6 from approximately three (3) minutes and 20 seconds to five (5) minutes and 40 seconds.

Any TCP / MOT scenario would take into consideration accessibility of emergency services north and south of the Airport, such as the Ogdensburg Fire Station located at approximately 1.3 miles north of OGS and the Heuvelton Fire Station located around ten (10) miles south of the Airport.

It is estimated construction activities associated to culvert replacement at NYS Route 812 would take around four (4) weeks.

5.9.2 Proposed Action – Operation Phase - Traffic

Once the construction phase is finalized, traffic pattern should return to normal conditions and no changes are expected between pre-development and post-development conditions.

5.9.3 Significant Impact Threshold - Traffic

Taking into consideration the scope of work, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F and does not have the potential to decrease the level of services.

5.9.4 No Action – Traffic

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action alternative assumes that the Proposed Action is not implemented, and existing conditions would remain unchanged. Airport access and internal circulation would not be improve.

5.10 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS

Above ground structures would be constructed within the OGS boundaries in an isolated area away from neighboring developments. It is not considered to produce adverse light emission impacts. Lighting associated with the Terminal Building would incorporate energy efficient technologies, and wherever feasible the use natural lighting. The lighting design would follow OGS safety / security standards and applicable local codes and regulations. Energy efficient luminaries would be used with appropriate spacing to avoid excessive lighting and visual effects outside the OGS boundaries. In addition, the use of shielding



would be considered to block certain light and minimize light trespass to neighboring properties as applicable.

The Proposed Action would involve the following lighting elements:

• Terminal Apron box shield/downward facing lighting similar to existing apron lighting

• Lighting would be attached to the sides, roof line, or other parts of the Terminal Building expansion and proposed GSE building and directed down with box shielded fixtures onto the apron, and ramps, stair exits, or other areas on the airside for workers and users of the terminal

• Pedestrian level fixtures lighting walkways would be bollard lighting or overhead lighting from roadway lighting that is directed downward onto paths and sidewalks with shielded fixtures

• Terminal drop-off area bollard lighting

• Airport access road box shield/downward facing lighting similar to the existing airport access road lighting

• Fuel farm downward facing lighting similar to the existing fuel farm lighting

• Taxiway lighting for Taxiway A and C similar or reuse of existing lighting

Lighting for the Proposed Action would lie within or closed to the developed footprint of the existing Terminal Building and Terminal Apron. The current terminal area is well lit with high mast lighting used to light the parking and movement areas for both vehicles and aircraft. During nighttime construction, the temporary use of portable work lights or light towers would be necessary to light the construction work zone. Construction nighttime is expected for the Terminal Apron expansion.

5.10.1 Significant Impact Threshold – Light Emission and Visual Effects

Taking into consideration the scope of work from the Project and its location, light emissions and visual effects would be less than significant by the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential to:

• Create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from light emissions

• Affect the visual character of the area due to the light emissions

• Affect the nature of the visual character of the area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resources

• Block or obstruct the views of visual resources, including whether these resources would still be viewable from other locations

5.10.2 No Action – Light Emissions / Visual Effects

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. Light emissions would remain unchanged for the No Action alternative. Similar to the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative it is not considered to produce adverse light emission impacts or visual effects. However, the No Action does not incorporate energy efficient technologies and luminary.



5.11 WATER RESOURCES

Overall, the Proposed Action avoids and minimizes impacts to water resources and is not expected to cause significant impacts. Design considerations, controls during construction, and other mitigation measures would be implemented to further minimize significant impacts to water resources and water quality.

5.11.1 Wetlands

The Proposed Action involves minimizes unavoidable impacts to approximately 2.09 acres within regulated (jurisdictional) wetlands.

The wetland impacts consist mainly of low-quality shallow depressions found on the maintained airfield that provide limited ecological functions other than flow flood alterations and nutrient / sediment removal. Therefore, the function and value quality of the wetlands subject to project impacts is low.

Table 5-7: Summary of Project Footprint within Regulated Wetland Areas

Jurisdictional Wetlands

(ID)

Wetland Classification

Regulated Wetland

Areas (Acres)

Project Footprint (Impacts) Project

Components NYSDEC Regulated (Acres)

USACE Regulated

(Acres)

G PEM 0.60 Not Jurisdictional 0.60 Drainage improvements

P PEM 0.13 Not Jurisdictional 0.13 Drainage improvement

S PSS/PEM 4.36 Not Jurisdictional 1.01 TAP improvements

V PEM 0.01 Not Jurisdictional 0.01 Drainage improvements

Total Regulated Wetlands Area 5.1

Total NYSDEC Regulated Wetland

Total USACE Regulated Wetland 1.75

Direct Impacts 1.75

Estimated Construction Buffer 0.34

Total Regulated Wetland Impacts 2.09 Note: Areas (acreage) are approximate. The estimated impacts (2.09 acres) over jurisdictional (regulated) wetlands does not

include 0.47 acre impacts within isolated wetlands “O” and “Q”. Estimated construction buffer is applied to Wetland S; drainage improvements considered the elimination of jurisdictional wetlands “G”, “P” and “V”.

The remaining areas of regulated wetlands would remain. Approximately 0.33 acre (14,520 SF) of the NYSDEC 100 feet Adjacent Area associated to Wetland U would be disturbed by the relocation of the Fuel Farm and construction. However, no impacts are anticipated within Wetland U.

For the replacement of Outfall No. 3, construction activities would occur outside the OHWM of the Oswegatchie River. During the design phase, potential impacts would be further evaluated, and mitigation action would continue to be developed to satisfy applicable regulations. Please refer to Figure 5-2 for potential wetland impacts.

RUNWAY 9-27


POND B


POND A

T/W B4T/W B3

T/W B

T/W B2

T/W C

T/W B1

EXISTINGAWOS

GAAPRON

EXISTINGARFF

T/W A

TERMINALLAND

ACQUISITION

FUEL FARM

GSE

IMPROVEOUTFALL 3

CLOSEOUTFALL 1

EXISTINGOUTFALL 2


812

68


EXISTINGFUEL FARM

TO BE RELOCATED

WETLAND S

WETLAND R(ISOLATED)

WETLAND P

WETLAND SWETLAND O(ISOLATED)

WETLAND T

WETLAND G

WETLAND U

WETLAND U

WETLAND Q(ISOLATED)

WETLAND V

LEGEND

SCALE

0 600 1200FEET

300

K:\O

gden

sbur

g\T-

1837

2.06

TAP

EA\

Draw

\Dra

win

gs\F

igur

es\A

LT-T

AP.d

wg

Figure 5-2: Wetland Impacts – Preferred Alternative

`Environmental Consequences


WETLAND IMPACTWETLANDS





david

Typewriter

5-25



5.11.2 Surface Waters

No direct impacts (e.g. dredge and fill) are expected from the replacement and improvements of Outfall No. 3 near the eastern stream bank of the Oswegatchie River. For the replacement of Outfall No. 3, construction activities would occur outside the OHWM of the Oswegatchie River. During the design phase, potential impacts would be further evaluated, and mitigation action would continue to be developed to satisfy applicable regulations.

5.11.3 Proposed Action - Construction Phase – Water Resources

Construction of the Proposed Action is anticipated to have limited direct impacts, less than significant to low quality wetlands. The Project would involve disturbance of approximately 1.75 acres of jurisdictional (regulated) wetland impacts within OGS. An additional 0.34 acre of incidental impacts over regulated wetlands are estimated for construction buffer. During the design and permitting phase, wetlands impacts would be further evaluated and coordinated.

The anticipated impacts (2.09 acres) over regulated wetlands would be less-than-significant. During construction, short-term / no significant impact would result from increased soil erosion and sedimentation from earthwork activities. All wetland impacts are mitigable achieving the overall policy goal of “no net loss”. Compensatory wetland mitigation would be satisfied through a federally approved In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program or off-site mitigation bank.

In regard to water quality, short-term and less than significant impacts may occur during the replacement of Outfall No. 3 and improvements to the dry drainage swale and Outfall No. 2, which may be reflected as a potential temporary increase in turbidity above background levels. Short-term and temporary increase in turbidity levels would result from earthwork activities. Impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs including appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures tailored to specific site conditions. In general, BMPs would be utilized to assure that construction impacts are minimized to the extent possible.

Furthermore, as described under Section 5.11.5, mitigation measures would be implemented to further compensate for wetland impacts. Additionally, prior to construction, the OGS would submit permit applications to the USACE and NYSDEC to satisfy the Section 404 of CWA and Article 24 of ECL requirements, respectively.

5.11.4 Proposed Action - Operational Phase – Water Resources

No additional impacts are expected to occur during this phase. OGS would continue maintaining the airfield and landside areas as to-date, to ensure any potential and unanticipated impacts remain at less than significant levels.

5.11.5 Mitigation Measures – Water Resources

In order to offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands, OGS would strive to achieve a goal of no overall net

loss of values and functions through the implementation of compensatory wetland mitigation. Wetlands

impacts are expected to be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 or equivalent to its functional value. Due to the site

constraints, in-situ / in-kind mitigation is not feasible. Mitigating wetlands on Airport property is

discouraged as to not create a wildlife hazard. Wetland mitigation would be satisfied through a federally

approved In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program or off-site mitigation bank. This would be further coordinated and



implemented during the final design and permitting stage. In order to further avoid or minimize the

possibility of incidental impacts during construction (e.g., erosion and sedimentation), a site specific SWPPP

would be implemented and BMPs to be followed.

5.11.6 Significant Impact Threshold – Water Resources

Taking into consideration the scope of work, its location, the limited wetland impacts (low quality) and compensatory mitigation to be implemented, potential effects would be less than significant. The Proposed Action does not exceed the Significant Impact Threshold as per the FAA Order 1050.1F, and does not have the potential for:

• Adversely affect a wetland’s function to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies, including surface waters and sole source and other aquifers

• Substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the affected wetland system’s values and functions or those of a wetland to which it is connected

• Substantially reduce the affected wetland’s ability to retain floodwaters or storm runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (the term welfare includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources or property important to the public)

• Adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically important timber, food, or fiber resources of the affected or surrounding wetlands

• Promote development of secondary activities or services that would cause the circumstances listed above to occur

• Be inconsistent with applicable state wetland strategies

5.11.7 No Action – Water Resources

The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project. The No Action alternative assumes that existing conditions would remain unchanged; therefore, 1.75 acres of direct impacts over low quality wetland areas would not occur, and compensatory mitigation is not required.

5.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Based on the above information, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action contributes significantly to cumulative impacts. In determining the significance of the impacts associated with the Proposed Action, it was considered the overall impact of project components detailed in the EA and the consequences of other related projects. CEQ regulations, at 40 CFR § 1508.7, define cumulative effects as the impact on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. According to the FAA, cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions”.

In general, the geographic area of concern for this analysis is the Airport property and drainage easements. For some resources, such as socioeconomics, consideration may extend further, and the geographic area of concern is larger. The time period for cumulative effects analysis is the cycle during which a project is expected to affect a resource, ecosystem, or human community, if that is the case. The evaluation of



cumulative impacts considered impacts from reasonably foreseeable future projects proposed in combination with past and present actions at the Airport. These actions have been implemented, are under current planning, or are anticipated in the near future to bring the Airport into compliance with federal design standards, improve safety of Airport operations, and improve the facility’s infrastructure. Previous projects within the past three (3) years include:

• Replacement of the AWOS

• Installation of the Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashing Lights

OBPA is contemplating fuel farm improvements, various small-scale rehabilitations and improvements to existing facilities, and acquisition of snow removal equipment in the coming years. All of these are largely contingent on funding availability. All are small scale, considered single and complete actions, and not expected to entail significant nor cumulative impacts. No other significant improvements are currently expected to occur within the next five (5) years.

Due to the lack of environmental resources present within the project area at OGS and the limited amount of impacts to the natural and human environment, cumulative impacts is not a significant issue for the Proposed Action. All the previously discussed impacts associated with the Proposed Action are considered less than significant. Table 5-1 lists the temporary and permanent impacts which would be a result of the Proposed Action. It should be noted that the Proposed Action would minimize and lower the risk of potential long-term direct and indirect impacts, and would result in cumulative environmental benefits (positive impacts) such as:

• More efficient and environmentally oriented ground operations


• Remedy lack of stormwater capacity

• Reduce the risk of safety and environmental issues associated with open water and wildlife attractants adjacent to Runway 9-27

Temporary and short-term impacts to air quality, noise, traffic, and solid waste may occur during project construction. All these impacts are temporary during construction, and would not result in any long-term, permanent impacts to the environment or surrounding land. As discussed in previous sections, BMPs would be implemented to further minimize temporary and control the risk of unanticipated and unforeseen incidental impacts. Unavoidable wetland impacts have been minimized as the result of the Proposed Action. A compensatory mitigation would be implemented to offset approximately 2.09 acres of unavoidable impacts to wetlands. The compensatory mitigation would strive to achieve a goal of no net loss according to the ecological values and functions. The compensatory wetland mitigation would involve off-site permittee responsible mitigation or the use of credits from the Duck’s Unlimited In-lieu-fee Program. The wetland impacts can be appropriately mitigated to ensure “no-net-loss” of Federally regulated wetlands. Proper permitting would be obtained in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

Since the Project would be developed by phases, the Proposed Action would be required to meet SPDES permit requirements, protecting water quality in the vicinity of the Airport. Additionally, appropriate State and Federal permits would be required prior to construction. The permit applications review process would include an evaluation of the permit history and would assure that cumulative impacts would be avoided. Given the preliminary nature of the TAP conceptual design, during the architecture and engineering design stages, projects elements would be further analyzed, and environmental impacts would to be evaluated in more detail and in coordination with mitigation actions.


6-1 Agency Coordination / Public Involvement

6. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

OBPA would announce its intent to present an EA pursuant the to the NEPA. A notice of availability (NOA) would be issued and the Draft EA would become available at the OBPA website and OBPA offices (if conditions of the current pandemic and health crisis permit). As applicable, throughout the NEPA review process, the OGS and the FAA would seek input in writing from federal, tribal, state and local agencies.

The NEPA process include a 30‐day public comment period for the Draft EA, starting from the publication of the NOA.

6.1 AGENCY, TRIBAL AND LOCAL GOVERMENTAL COORDINATION

As part of the agency review and public comment process, this EA would be provided to federal, state and local agencies, and interested Tribal group, as applicable. The 30-day agency and public review and commenting period would be open from the date of the NOA and second day of publication in the local newspaper.

With the publication of the NOA, regulatory agencies would be informed about the availability of the Draft EA and requesting input within a 30-day comment period. Input to be received from agencies would be incorporated into the EA document as applicable. Copies of letters and communications to and from agencies would be included in Appendix D.

6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The NOA for this Draft EA would be published for two (2) non-consecutive days, one of which would be a Sunday, in a local newspaper. The publication of the NOA would include a project specific email and postal address for stakeholders and public to submit comments. Comments would be due by the end of the 30-day public comment period. Any comments received on this Draft EA would be documented and considered during preparation of the Final EA. Documentation would be included in Appendix E, as applicable.


6-2 Agency Coordination / Public Involvement



7-1 List of Preparers

7. LIST OF PREPARERS This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by McFarland-Johnson, Inc. The following professionals were involved in preparation of the document:

Erica C. Major – Junior Planner / GIS Analyst, M.A., Geography, Concentration-Human Geography (2007): SUNY University at Albany. Project Involvement: GIS Analysis and Mapping, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.

Leanne C. Ulrich – Environmental Analyst, B.S., Biological Sciences (2018): State University of New York at Cortland. Project Involvement: Wetlands Field Verification and EA Affected Environment.

Robert Toomey – Designer, AAS, Civil Engineering (2001): Broome Community College. Project Involvement: Schematic Design and Alternative Analysis

Jonathan Warnock, PE – Senior Engineer, B.S., Civil Engineering (2005): Villanova University. Project Involvement: Airport Drainage Study, Schematic Design and Environmental Consequences.

Maresa G. Miller – Assistant Environmentalist, B.S., Environmental Studies (2001): Slippery Rock University. Project Involvement: Technical writer and EA document preparation.

Thomas Wirickx, QAWB, CE – Senior Environmental Analyst; B.S., Environmental and Forest Biology (1998): SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse. Project Involvement: Analysis of Wetlands, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

John Ferri, MA – Registered professional Archeologist; The Public Archaeology Facility, State of University of New York. Project Involvement: Phase 1B Archeological Survey

David R. Rosa – Sr. Environmental Scientist / Project Manager, B.S., Natural Sciences (2000): University of Sagrado Corazon. Project Involvement: Project Manager, EA document preparation and technical writer.

Georgie Nugent – Regional Environmental Division Director, M.S., Environmental Science and Engineering (1999): Colorado School of Mines. Project Involvement: Quality Control and Quality Assurance.

Zachary A. Staff – Aviation Manager, M.A., Geography (2007): Binghamton University. Project Involvement: Proposed Action and Alternative Analysis.

Jeffrey R. Wood, CSDP – Senior Transportation Manager; B.S., Environmental Studies (1988): SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse. Project Involvement: Principal-In-Charge, NEPA Advisor and oversight of EA preparation.


List of Preparers 7-2



8-1 Appendices

8. APPENDICES • Appendix A: New York State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Assessment Form

• Appendix B: USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form

• Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment Phase 1

• Appendix D: Agencies Correspondence

• Appendix E: Public Involvement


8-2 Appendices



APPENDIX A:

New York SEQRA

Environmental Assessment Form


A Appendices


of 13

Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting

Instructions for Completing Part 1

Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.

Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information.

Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1is accurate and complete.

A. Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information.

Name of Action or Project:

Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):

Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):

Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:

E-Mail:

Address:

City/PO: State: Zip Code:

Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:

E-Mail:

Address:


Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: E-Mail:

Address:


http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91625.html

of 13

B. Government Approvals

B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financialassistance.)

Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required

Application Date (Actual or projected)

a. City Counsel, Town Board, 9 Yes 9 Noor Village Board of Trustees

b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No Planning Board or Commission

c. City, Town or 9 Yes 9 No Village Zoning Board of Appeals

d. Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No

e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No

f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No

g. State agencies 9 Yes 9 No

h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No

i. Coastal Resources.i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? 9 Yes 9 No

ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? 9 Yes 9 No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? 9 Yes 9 No

C. Planning and Zoning

C.1. Planning and zoning actions.Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?

• If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.• If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1

C.2. Adopted land use plans.

a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No where the proposed action would be located?

If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway; 9 Yes 9 No

Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;or other?)

If Yes, identify the plan(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes 9 Noor an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?

If Yes, identify the plan(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________




of 13

C.3. Zoning

a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. 9 Yes 9 NoIf Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? 9 Yes 9 No

c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes,

i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________

C.4. Existing community services.

a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________

b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. What parks serve the project site?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D. Project Details

D.1. Proposed and Potential Development

a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include allcomponents)?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? _____________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned

or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _____________ acres

c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,

square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes,

i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? 9 Yes 9 No iii. Number of lots proposed? ________iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________

9 Yes 9 No _____ months

_____ _____ month _____ year

e. Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?i. If No, anticipated period of construction:

ii. If Yes:• Total number of phases anticipated• Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition)• Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may

determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




of 13

f. Does the project include new residential uses? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.

One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)

Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ At completion of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________

g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes,

i. Total number of structures ___________ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length

iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet

h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?

If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________

ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source._________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length

vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):________________________________________________________________________________________________________

D.2. Project Operationsa. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No

(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavatedmaterials will remain onsite)

If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________ ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?

• Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________• Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________

iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? 9 Yes 9 NoIf yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acresvi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres

vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feetviii. Will the excavation require blasting? 9 Yes 9 No ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?

If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic

description): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


of 13

ii.

iii.

Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________

iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:• acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________• expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________• purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________• proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________• if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________

v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/dayii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? 9 Yes 9 No

If Yes: • Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________• Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? 9 Yes 9 No • Is the project site in the existing district? 9 Yes 9 No • Is expansion of the district needed? 9 Yes 9 No • Do existing lines serve the project site? 9 Yes 9 No

iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

• Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? 9 Yes 9 No

If, Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________• Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________• Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________

v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.

d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/dayii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and

approximate volumes or proportions of each): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? 9 Yes 9 NoIf Yes:• Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________• Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________• Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? 9 Yes 9 No • Is the project site in the existing district? 9 Yes 9 No • Is expansion of the district needed? 9 Yes 9 No

of 13

9 Yes 9 No • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?• Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? 9 Yes 9 No

If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:• Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________• Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________• What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________

v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposedreceiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans):

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-pointsource (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?

If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?

_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface) _____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)

ii. Describe types of new point sources. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________• If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? 9 Yes 9 No iv. Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? 9 Yes 9 Nof. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No

combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?If Yes, identify:

i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)________________________________________________________________________________________________________

g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, 9 Yes 9 No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?

If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No

ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:

• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)• ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

of 13

h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, 9 Yes 9 No landfills, composting facilities)?

If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________

ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat orelectricity, flaring): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 Noquarry or landfill operations?

If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No new demand for transportation facilities or services?

If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend

Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________

iii.iv.v.

Parking spaces: Existing ___________________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________________Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? Yes No

9 Yes 9 No vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No

or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No

pedestrian or bicycle routes?

k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No for energy?

If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or

other):________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation? 9 Yes 9 No

l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.i. During Construction: ii. During Operations:• Monday - Friday: _________________________ • Monday - Friday: ____________________________• Saturday: ________________________________ • Saturday: ___________________________________• Sunday: _________________________________ • Sunday: ____________________________________• Holidays: ________________________________ • Holidays: ___________________________________

If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 13

m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, 9 Yes 9 No operation, or both?

If yes: i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

n. W thill prope os actioed havn e outd lighoor ting? 9 Yes 9 No If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 NoDescribe: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? 9 Yes 9 NoIf Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearestoccupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

p. 9 Yes 9 No Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage?

If Yes: i. Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________ii. Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)iii. Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities:________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, 9 Yes 9 No insecticides) during construction or operation?

If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatment(s):

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? 9 Yes 9 No r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No

of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?If Yes:

i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:• Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)• Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)

ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:• Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________• Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:

• Construction: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Operation: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 13

s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, orother disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:• ________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or• ________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment

iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years

t. Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No waste?

If Yes: i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/monthiv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action

E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site

a. Existing land uses.i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.

9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________

ii. If mix of uses, generally describe:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.Land use or Covertype

Current Acreage

Acreage After Project Completion

Change (Acres +/-)

• Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervioussurfaces

• Forested• Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-

agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)• Agricultural

(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features

(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) • Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)• Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)

• OtherDescribe: _______________________________ ________________________________________


of 13

c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________

d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?

If Yes, i. Identify Facilities:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:• Dam height: _________________________________ feet • Dam length: _________________________________ feet • Surface area: _________________________________ acres • Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet

ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?

If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________

ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?

If Yes: i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?

If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No

Remediation database? Check all that apply:9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Neither database

ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

of 13

v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________• Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________• Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________• Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________• Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? 9 Yes 9 No • Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Sitea. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet

b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%

c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________% ___________________________ __________% ____________________________ __________%

d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet

e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Poorly Drained _____% of site

f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: _____% of site 9 10-15%: _____% of site 9 15% or greater: _____% of site

g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

h. Surface water features.i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No

ponds or lakes)?ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? 9 Yes 9 No

If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No

state or local agency?iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information:

• Streams: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________ • Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________• Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________ • Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________

v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No waterbodies?

If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i. Is the project site in a designated Floo dway? 9 Yes 9 No

j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No

k. Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No

l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________


dxrebecc

Sticky Note

Marked set by dxrebecc

of 13

m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________

n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________iii. Extent of community/habitat:

• Currently: ______________________ acres • Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres• Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres

o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?

p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 Nospecial concern?

q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Sitea. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No

Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________

b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________

ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________

c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No Natural Landmark?

If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Featureii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________

If Yes: i. Species and listing (endangered or threatened):______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If Yes: i. Species and listing:____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


of 13

e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district 9 Yes 9 Nowhich is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places?

If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site 9 Historic Building or District

ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 9 Yes 9 No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?

g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes:

i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________

h. 9 Yes 9 No Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or localscenic or aesthetic resource?

If Yes: i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 9 Yes 9 No

Program 6 NYCRR 666?If Yes:

i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 9 Yes 9 No

F. Additional InformationAttach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.

If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.

G. VerificationI certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.

Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________

Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________



EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, April 10, 2020 10:54 AM

Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations.

B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] No

B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] No

C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Potential Contamination History]

Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Listed]


E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Environmental Site Remediation Database]


E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site]

No

E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No

E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] Yes

E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes

E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands Name]

Federal Waters, NYS Wetland

E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands Size]

NYS Wetland (in acres):20.9

E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - DEC Wetlands Number]

OE-12

E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No

E.2.i. [Floodway] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

1Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report

E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.

E.2.l. [Aquifers] No

E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No

E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] No

E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No

E.3.a. [Agricultural District] Yes

E.3.a. [Agricultural District] STLA001

E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No

E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No

E.3.e. [National or State Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites]


E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] Yes

E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No

2Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report


A Appendices



Form

Impact Rating USDA Farmland Conversion

APPENDIX B:


Appendices


B

U.S. Department of Agriculture

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project Federal Agency Involved

Proposed Land Use County and State

PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS

Person Completing Form:

Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)

YES NO

Acres Irrigated

Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s)

Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction

Acres: %

Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

Name of Land Evaluation System Used

Name of State or Local Site Assessment System

Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly

C. Total Acres In Site

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)

MaximumPoints

Site A Site B Site C Site D

1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)

2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)

3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)

4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)

5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)

6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)

7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)

8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)

9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)

10. On-Farm Investments (20)

11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)

12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)

TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:

Date Of Selection

Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date: (See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,

unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days. Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form. Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records. Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing

NRCS office. Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent

with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM (For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land

use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated. Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following: 1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the

conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture. 2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,

utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion. Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS

assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). 1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type

project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the

FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160. Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points: For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center. NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

Total points assigned Site A 180 Maximum points possible 200 = X 160 = 144 points for Site A


APPENDIX C:

Cultural Resources Assessment

Phase 1



C Appendices

Public Archaeology Facility Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development Project

DRAFT REPORT

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

PHASE 1B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

OGDENSBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PHASE 1

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

TOWN OF OSWEGATCHIE

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY

NEW YORK

MCD 08923

Prepared by:

JOHN FERRI, M.A.

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY FACILITY

Prepared for:

MCFARLAND JOHNSON

49 COURT ST, P.O. BOX 1980

BINGHAMTON, NY 13902

NOVEMBER 19, 2019

Binghamton University, State University of New York Binghamton, New York 13902-6000


i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

PROJECT IDENTIFIER: Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development Project

SHPO REVIEW NUMBER: N/A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY TYPE: Phase 1 Archaeological Survey LOCATION INFORMATION: Route: Along NY 812 and on the property of Ogdensburg International Airport Minor Civil Division: Town of Oswegatchie (MCD 08923) County: St. Lawrence SURVEY AREA: Size of Area: 8.8 ha (21.7 ac) Area of Potential Effects (APE) SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT: Precontact: Moderate Historic: Low for most of project area; moderate where northern part of the project area intersects with NY 812. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY: Number of shovel test pits (STPs): 215 at 15 m (50 ft) RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: Number of precontact sites identified: 0 Number of historic sites identified: 0 Number of sites recommended for investigation: 0 Number of listed/eligible or potentially eligible sites that may be impacted: 0

AUTHOR/INSTITUTION: John Ferri, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University DATE OF REPORT: November 19, 2019

SPONSOR: McFarland Johnson


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

III. GENERAL PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................................ 1

IV. BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Site Files Search .................................................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................ 5

4.3 Precontact Period Context ................................................................................................................... 8

Precontact Sensitivity Assessment ........................................................................................................ 8

4.4 Historic Context .................................................................................................................................. 8

Historic Sensitivity Assessment ............................................................................................................. 9

V. PHASE 1 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 14

5.1 Project Walkover .............................................................................................................................. 14

5.2 Subsurface Testing Procedures ......................................................................................................... 14

5.3 General Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................................ 14

VI. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................... 18

6.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 18

6.2 Negative Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 18

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX I. WORKS CITED ................................................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX II. STP SOIL PROFILES ....................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX III. STP ARTIFACT CATALOG .......................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX IV. PROJECT MAPS ............................................................................................................. 33


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the project area in the Town of Oswegatchie and St. Lawrence County in New York State. ..... 2 Figure 2. Location of the project area on the 1963 (1978 edition) Ogdensburg East, NY 7.5' quadrangle. .................. 3

Figure 3. Location of the project area on an aerial photograph. .................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. USDA Soil Survey Map with the project area marked................................................................................... 7

Figure 5. Approximate location of the APE on the 1858 Rogerson Map of St. Lawrence County, New York. ........... 10 Figure 6. Location of the APE on the 1865 Beers New Topographical Atlas of St. Lawrence County, New York. ..... 11

Figure 7. Location of APE on the 1904 Ogdensburg, NY USGS 15' Quadrangle. ...................................................... 12 Figure 8. Location of APE on the 1943 Ogdensburg East, NY USGS 7.5' Quadrangle. ............................................. 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Site Files Summary (Confidential) .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Summary of soil types within the project area................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1. View of northern end of proposed outfall replacement route, facing east from Oswegatchie River. ............ 15 Photo 2. View of proposed outfall replacement route along airport fence, facing east. .............................................. 15 Photo 3. View of proposed outfall replacement route, facing south. ........................................................................... 16

Photo 4. View of taxiway area, facing north. .............................................................................................................. 16 Photo 5. View of location of proposed access road, facing east. ................................................................................. 17

Photo 6. View of disturbances near proposed taxiway location, facing south. ............................................................ 17


1

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the Public Archaeology Facility’s (PAF) Phase 1 archaeological survey for the proposed Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development Project for McFarland Johnson. The project is located within the Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York (Figures 1-3, pp. 2-4). The research summarized in this document was performed under the supervision of Dr. Laurie Miroff, Director of PAF. John Ferri served as project director and is the author of this report. Rebecca Stollman, Tom Besom, Paul Brown, Edgar Alarcon, and Shannon Torrens served as field assistants. Artifacts were cataloged by Dr. Claire Horn. Mary Lou Supa constructed project databases. Maria Pezzuti performed all related administrative duties.

This report complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act, the guidelines of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (2005), and the professional standards of the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC 1994). The

results of the research performed for this report do not apply to any territory outside the project area.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The area of potential effect (APE) for the proposed Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development

Project is located on the western side of the Ogdensburg International Airport property along NY 812 in the Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York. The APE is located in the mostly undeveloped fields north and east of the airport terminal and along the southern and western security gates of the airport property. The proposed development includes an expansion of the terminal area, a new taxiway, and the construction of associated access roads and a GSE. Additionally, a 12-inch outfall pipe running on the airport’s southern and western boundary fence and out to the Oswegatchie River will be replaced with a larger 66-inch pipe. A 0.25 ha (0.63 ac) area of the APE around the terminal was previously tested by PAF (Kastl and Hohman 2014). Other archaeological surveys performed on the Ogdensburg International Airport property include two Phase 1B surveys (Hartgen 2001, 2003) and a Phase 1A assessment (Hartgen 2012). Areas of proposed soil disturbance will be subjected to archaeological testing (Appendix IV, p. 33-36).

III. GENERAL PROJECT AREA

Figure 1 (p. 2) situates the project area in the Town of Oswegatchie in New York State and St. Lawrence

County. Figure 2 (p. 3) shows the topographic context on the 1963 (1978 edition) Ogdensburg East, NY USGS 7.5’ quadrangle. Figure 3 (p. 4) shows the project area on an aerial photograph.


2

Figure 1. Location of the project area in the Town of Oswegatchie and St. Lawrence County in New York State.


3

Figure 2. Location of the project area on the 1963 (1978 edition) Ogdensburg East, NY 7.5' quadrangle.


4

Figure 3. Location of the project area on an aerial photograph.


5

IV. BACKGROUND RESEARCH

4.1 Site Files Search

A site files search conducted using the NYS Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) identified one known precontact and three known historic sites within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the APE (Table 1). None of the known sites are located within the project area. The Maple City Trail site is a multicomponent precontact site located along the east bank of the Oswegatchie River. A quartzite Vosburg point associated the site with the Late Archaic period, while decorated pottery dates to the Canoe Point phase of the Middle Woodland period. Other precontact artifacts included lithic debitage and undecorated pottery sherds. The Maple City Trail site is located approximately 0.59 km (0.37 mi) west of the APE. The three historic sites, Fisher and Fisher (SUBi-3082), T. Green (SUBi-3083), and W. Green (SUBi-3084), are mid-19th to 20th century farmsteads associated with map documented structures (MDSs). The sites are along NY 68 approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) west of the APE. The sites consisted of sheet middens associated with the farmhouses and were found not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Table 1. Site Files Summary (Confidential)

Site #

Site Name

Distance from PA / Distance

from water / elevation / slope

Cultural Affiliation/Site Type

NR Eligibility

08923.000069/ SUBi-3083

T. Green Site 1.60 km (1 mi) E / 125 m (410 ft) / 95 m (305 ft) ASL / flat

Historic: 19th and 20th century sheet midden / Farmstead occupied from mid-19th century through 20th century

Not eligible

08923.000070 / SUBi-3082

Fisher and Fisher Site 1.59 km (0.99 mi) E / 125 m (410 ft) / 95 m (305 ft) ASL / flat

Historic: 19th and 20th century sheet midden / Two farmsteads dating from the 1840s/1850s to early 20th century

Not eligible

08923.000071 / SUBi-3084

W. Green Site 1.59 km (0.99 mi) E / 125 m (410 ft) / 95 m (305 ft) ASL / flat

Historic: 19th and 20th century sheet midden / Farmstead occupied from mid-19th century through 20th century

Not eligible

08923.000081 Maple City Trail Site 0.59 km (0.37 mi) W / 27.7 m (91 ft) E of Oswegatchie River / 84 m (275 ft) ASL / flat

Precontact / Late Archaic through Middle Woodland / multicomponent site assemblage includes 13 pottery sherds, 3 flakes, 1 quartzite Vosburg projectile point, and 1 untyped Onondaga chert projectile point.

Undetermined

4.2 Environmental Setting

The project area is within the St. Lawrence physiographic province and is largely drained by the Oswegatchie River, located from 30 to 1000 m (98 - 3,280 ft) to the west of the APE. The elevation of the APE is between 87-90 m (285-290 ft) amsl. Portions of the project area were designated as wetlands. Standing water was present in these areas and some adjacent areas which were not tested during the survey.

Soils in the project area consist of the Adjidaumo, Flackville, and Muskellunge Series soils (Figure 4, p. 7). Typical soil profiles for these soils are listed in Table 2. None of these soils are typically found in flood plain contexts, and deeply buried horizons are not expected.

Table 2. Summary of soil types within the project area

Name Slope % Soil Horizon Depth cm (in) Color Land Forms

Adjidaumo silty clay (Ak)

0-3% Ap: 0-20 cm (0-8 in) Bg1: 20-46 cm (8-18 in) Bg2: 46-69 cm (18-27 in) Cg: 69-165 cm (27-65 in)

Very dark gray silty clay Gray silty clay Gray clay Gray clay

Deep, poorly drained soils formed in fine sediments deposited in marine environments.

Flackville loamy fine sand (FkA, FkB)

0-3% 3-8%

Ap: 0-23 cm (0-9 in) Bhs: 23-28 cm (9-11 in) Bs1: 28-53 cm (11-21 in) Bs2: 53-69 cm (21-27 in) BC: 69-74 cm (27-29 in) 2C: 74-183 cm (29-72 in)

Very dark grayish-brown loamy fine sand Dark brown loamy fine sand Brown loamy fine sand Brown fine sand Brown fine sand Yellowish-brown silty clay

Very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in sandy deposits that overlie clayey marine deposits.


6

Name Slope % Soil Horizon Depth cm (in) Color Land Forms

Muskellunge silty clay loam (MsA)

0-3% Ap: 0-20 cm (0-8 in) E: 20-31 cm (8-12 in) Bt: 31-46 cm (12-18 in) Btg: 46-66 cm (18-26 in) Cg1: 66-76 cm (26-30 in) Cg2: 76-183 cm (30-72 in)

Dark grayish-brown silt loan Grayish-brown silt loam Brown silty clay Dark grayish-brown silty clay Grayish-brown silty clay Dark gray silty clay

Very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in water deposited materials, found on glacial lake plains and uplands mantled with lake sediments.


7

Figure 4. USDA Soil Survey Map with the project area marked.

(Key: Ak = Adjidaumo silty clay, 0-3% slopes; FkA = Flackville loamy fine sand, 0-3% slopes; FkB = Flackville loamy fine sand, 3-8% slopes; MsA = Muskellunge silty clay loam, 0-3% slopes; W = Water.)


8

4.3 Precontact Period Context

The precontact period of New York State and the Northeast was characterized by two broad subsistence

patterns, both of which influenced settlement and land use patterns, as well as material culture. The first, designated as the pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer, began with the arrival of highly mobile groups during the Paleo-Indian and Early-Middle Archaic periods around 10,000-4000 B.C. Mobility was an important adaptation, as these groups relied on gathered plants, game animals, and fish for their subsistence. These groups often followed herds of animals, or migrated from one resource-rich landform (e.g., upland wetlands) to another. Starting in the Late Archaic period and extending through the Middle Woodland (4000 B.C. to A.D. 900), hunter-gatherers became seasonally nomadic. People created relatively large base camps in major river or lake valleys, from which daily foragers would radiate outward in search of local resources. During seasons of resource dispersal, the camps would break up into smaller, more mobile units capable of foraging for themselves. Sites associated with hunter-gatherers include the short-term camps and resource processing stations, as well as larger base camps and lithic scatters associated with the daily foragers of the seasonally nomadic groups.

Beginning around A.D. 900, the Late Woodland period is defined by the widespread shift towards agriculture as a subsistence base, along with the associated sedentism necessary for agricultural pursuits. While these groups continued to forage for plant and animal resources, they relied heavily on cultigens as a primary food source. Permanent villages developed in the region, along with a matrilineal kin structure. Later in the period, many groups began situating their villages on elevated landforms above major waterways. Few Woodland period sites have been found in the region (Abel 2001). The Akwesasne and St. Regis Mohawk claim this region as part of their ancestral territory. Cook (1987:8) states that archaeological surveys conducted in the immediate surroundings of the project area by himself and Albert Dekin, Jr., in conjunction with SUC Potsdam, recorded no prehistoric sites. However, a Paleo-Indian component (fluted point), a Late Archaic Lamoka component, several Early and Middle Woodland components, and one Late Woodland (Iroquois) component were identified near the banks of the Oswegatchie River (Cook 1987:8). Precontact Sensitivity Assessment

The physiographic location of the project area and proximity to the Oswegatchie River suggest a moderate potential for precontact period cultural material, especially for the section of the APE between NY 812 and the river. While a search of the CRIS database only returned one precontact site within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the APE, the multicomponent temporal designation for the Maple City Trail Site raises the possibility of human presence in the area surrounding the APE for much of the precontact period. The proximity of the APE to the Oswegatchie River increases the potential for villages or base camps as well as processing and resource procurement sites within the project limits.

4.4 Historic Context The region encompassing St. Lawrence County passed from Dutch to English control in 1664. By 1788, New York State had annexed this region through treaties with the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). St. Lawrence County was created in 1802 from parts of Clinton, Montgomery, and Herkimer Counties.

The Ogdensburg International Airport is located within the Town of Oswegatchie, just to the south of the City of Ogdensburg. On the north edge of the town is the city, where much of the earliest European activities took place. In 1749, French explorers under the missionary Francois Picquet established a fort where the Oswegatchie and St. Lawrence Rivers converge. The Fort de la Présentation consisted of a mission house and was enclosed within a small stockade or palisade. In 1751, Picquet constructed a dam and a sawmill on the Oswegatchie River. At the mill, large quantities of lumber were manufactured and used in the building of a rapidly growing village, which was mainly composed of members of the Onondaga. The mission was destroyed by the French upon the advance of General Amherst’s army in the summer of 1760. The British occupied the post for some years until it was taken by the Americans during the Revolutionary War. Following the Revolutionary War, the Americans took control of the region. European settlement commenced in the region under the proprietorship of Samuel Ogden and his agent, Nathan Ford, beginning in 1796-1797. Ogden and Ford rebuilt the dam and mill that had been abandoned by the French. Settlement was slow, as only four families were living within the village of Ogdensburg by 1804. Ships began to be built in Ogdensburg in 1808, and the village grew until the outbreak of the War of 1812.


9

Following the War of 1812, settlement increased in both the village of Ogdensburg and the Town of Oswegatchie. In the 1830s, the Oswego Canal connected to Ogdensburg and allowed for the direct access to markets. By the mid-19th century, the Northern Railroad connected Ogdensburg to other points across the eastern and central United States and continued to allow for the development of the region around Ogdensburg. By the 1870s, a large number of businesses and manufacturers were present in the village (later incorporated into the city) of Ogdensburg and included asheries, blacksmiths, boat building, a broom factory, carriage works, mills, and a stave factory (Everts et al. 1878).

Outside of the village/city limits of Ogdensburg, agriculture, as well as dairying was the principal interest in the town (Curtis 1894:695). Other small settlements grew along the Oswegatchie River, as those settlements used water power for mills and other small rural industries.

In the vicinity of the project area, scattered farmsteads were built by the mid-19th century. These small to moderate sized farms were occupied by farmers and tenants through the mid-20th century. In 1947, the Ogdensburg Municipal Airport was constructed between NY 68 and NY 812.

Historic Sensitivity Assessment

The earliest available map of St. Lawrence County is Rogerson’s (1858) Map of St. Lawrence County, New

York (Figure 5, p. 10). The map shows the APE situated along a toll road outside Ogdensburg. Several structures are located along the toll road, which follows the route of modern NY 812. Most of the area to the east of the toll road remains undeveloped. While no map documented structures are within the APE, the Wellar property on NY 812 has a structure north of the northern part of the APE and a toll gate is located just to the south. Additionally, a toll gate was present along the outfall route APE along with the Hare residence on NY 812. The Riverside Cemetery, located between the toll road and the Oswegatchie River, is present on this map. The 1865 Beers New Topographical Atlas

of St. Lawrence County, New York (Figure 6, p. 11) shows little change from the previous map. The J. Weller, J. Miller, and W.G. households are located along the outfall route on NY 812. A brickyard is now located to the north of the APE. The remainder is located in undeveloped fields or farmland. The 1904 15’ USGS quadrangle (Figure 7, p. 12) shows the APE within farmland to the east of the former toll road. Two structures are still present near the northwestern section of the APE. St. Mary’s Cemetery is now located between NY 812 and the Oswegatchie River near the southern end of the APE. The Ogdensburg Municipal Airport is present on the 1943 7.5’ USGS quadrangle (Figure 8, p. 13). The airport replaced a large area of farmland and covers much of the eastern side of the APE. Zophen Cemetery is now present immediately to the north of St. Mary’s Cemetery. A structure is still present near the northwest corner of the project area. A former car dealership was present at the time of the survey which most likely covered these map documented structures (MDSs) with a large structure and paved parking lot. The probability for identifying historic archaeological sites is low for most of the project area. No historic standing structures are present within the current project area. Much of the APE was either undeveloped or used as farmland historically. There is a stronger possibility for historic sites along NY 812, where a 19th century toll road and several structures were present. However, much of that area has been disturbed by the construction of the airport, buried utilities, and other modern development along the road.


10

Figure 5. Approximate location of the APE on the 1858 Rogerson Map of St. Lawrence County, New York.


11

Figure 6. Location of the APE on the 1865 Beers New Topographical Atlas of St. Lawrence County, New York.


12

Figure 7. Location of APE on the 1904 Ogdensburg, NY USGS 15' Quadrangle.


13

Figure 8. Location of APE on the 1943 Ogdensburg East, NY USGS 7.5' Quadrangle.


14

V. PHASE 1 FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY

5.1 Project Walkover

Archaeologists from the Public Archaeology Facility conducted a walkover of the project area prior to field testing to determine how much of the APE was testable and to identify any cultural remains or foundations visible above ground. Most the APE was located in open fields along NY 812 and within the airport security fence. Areas outside the airport fence were overgrown with grass and light brush, with the exception of a wooded area in the northern section of the APE which was covered by trees and dense brush. Untestable areas included several patches of standing water, utility corridors, and pavement associated with the airport infrastructure. With the exception of these areas, the entire project area was testable. Potentially disturbed soil was located along the outfall line and in proximity to the airport terminal. These areas were tested where buried utilities could be avoided in order to confirm the state of the soils. Representative photos (Photos 1-6) of the project area are included on pp. 15-17.

5.2 Subsurface Testing Procedures

Based on the information obtained from the walkover, PAF conducted an archaeological survey by means of shovel test pits (STPs) within the APE. The STPs were excavated at 15 m (50 ft) intervals. In areas where the APE was wider than 15 m (50 ft) additional transects were added (Appendix IV, p. 33-36). Systematic testing was conducted throughout the entire area proposed for below-ground impacts (terminal extension, taxiway access, access roads and GSE, and new outfall pipe.). The STPs were excavated with hand tools and were generally 35 cm (14 in) in diameter. STPs extended at least 15 cm (6 in) into culturally sterile B horizon soils, unless obstructed by rocks, roots, or standing water.

All soil was sifted through 7 mm (0.25 in) hardware cloth, and artifacts from each recognizable soil horizon were bagged separately. Notation was made of coal ash, brick fragments, and modern refuse (plastic, asphalt, etc.), and these items were discarded in the field. Written descriptions of soil color and texture, artifact content, and digging conditions were made at the time of excavation. The STP soil records are presented in Appendix II, pp. 21-31. The artifact catalog is presented in Appendix III, p. 32.

5.3 General Laboratory Methods

Historic artifacts were classified according to a non-hierarchical catalogue system developed at PAF. The system, in part, uses a modification of South’s artifact classification (South 1977), which identifies broad artifact patterning through the use of functional groups. Following South, each artifact was classified as to general group (e.g., food related, architectural, etc.) and then according to specific categories, forms, and patterns (e.g., blue transfer print cup, sun-purpled bottle glass, cut nail, animal bone, etc.). Information on ceramic decoration and form were also recorded when present along with time ranges for the manufacture of these artifacts and other diagnostic pieces. The resulting artifact catalogs were entered into a relational data base management program (Paradox) to facilitate subsequent analysis.

All of the artifacts, notes, and other documentation of the reconnaissance testing are curated according to federal (36 CFR Part 79) and state (NYAC 1994) guidelines in the facilities of the Department of Anthropology at Binghamton University.


15

Photo 1. View of northern end of proposed outfall replacement route, facing east from Oswegatchie River.

Photo 2. View of proposed outfall replacement route along airport fence, facing east.


16

Photo 3. View of proposed outfall replacement route, facing south.

Photo 4. View of taxiway area, facing north.


17

Photo 5. View of location of proposed access road, facing east.

Photo 6. View of disturbances near proposed taxiway location, facing south.


18

VI. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS

6.1 Overview

Fieldwork was conducted from November 4-8, 2019. Archaeologists excavated 215 STPs within the entire

APE in areas of proposed ground disturbance at 15 m (50 ft) intervals (Appendix IV, p. 33-36). Seven STPs were written off for standing water and one was written off due to the presence of a gravel roadway. The majority of STPs were excavated in areas where Muskellunge silty clay loam soils were predicted. These STPs included most of the outfall replacement route (STPs A1-A52, A57-A60, and B1-B32) and much of the terminal expansion, taxiway, and access road areas (STPs C1, C8-C43, D1-D3, D14-D15, D19-D32, D40-D66, D74-D75, and F1-F5). While most of the STPs located in Muskellunge soils aligned with expectations for the soil class, most of the B-transect along NY 812 was highly disturbed. These soil disturbances were probably caused by a combination of road construction and the original outfall trench. Soil disruption was identified by the presence of sand and gravel fill soils as well as the presence of modern refuse, such as plastic wrappers, Styrofoam, and asphalt. The intact soil profile for STPs in Muskellunge soils displayed a profile of an Ap horizon, followed by a B horizon. The Ap horizon was a very dark brown or dark brown silty loam or clay loam and ranged in depth from 6 - 50 cm (2.4 - 19.7 in) below ground surface, with an average of 24.0 cm (9.4 in). The B horizon consisted of an olive brown or strong brown clay or clay loam. STPs in these soils ranged in depth from 21 - 76 cm (8.3 - 29.9 in) below ground surface; 45.0 cm (17.7 in) on average.

Nearly all artifacts recovered during the survey were located along the outfall replacement route in

Muskellunge silty clay loams. Of these, most were located on the B-transect, which displayed high levels of disturbance. Other artifacts included a fragment of a faintly molded porcelain plate (1890-1950) from STP F5 in the backyard of a standing house along NY 812.

Areas where Adjidaumo silty clay were expected covered the eastern end of the outfall route (STPs A63-

A64), part of the expanded taxiway (STPs C2-C7), and sections of the proposed access roads (STPs D8-D9, D33-D39, D67-D73, and E3-E4). STPs in Adjidaumo soils had a profile of an Ap horizon followed by a B horizon and matched the expected soil description. The Ap horizon was a dark brown silt loam or silty clay with a depth of 17 - 40 cm (6.7 - 15.7 in) below ground surface, and an average of 24.4 cm (9.6 in). The B horizon was typically an olive brown clay or silty clay. STPs in Adjidaumo soils ended between 30 and 60 cm (11.8 - 23.6 in) below ground surface with an average of 42.2 cm (16.6 in). One artifact was recovered from Adjidaumo silty clay soils, a piece of clear bottle glass from STP C4.

The expected soil type that covered the least area within the project limits was Flackville loamy fine sand,

which was located in spots along the outfall route (STPs A53-A56, A61-A62) and in the path of the proposed access roads (STPs D4-D7, D10-D13, D16-D18, and E1-E2). STPs in Flackville began with an Ap horizon, followed by a B horizon, that aligned with expectations for the soil type. The Ap horizon was a dark brown silt loam or silty clay with an average depth of 8 - 35 cm (3.1 - 13.7 in) below ground surface and an average of 21.2 cm (8.3 in). The B horizon was an olive brown or strong brown clay or clay loam. These STPs had an ending depth of between 29 and 60 cm (11.4 - 23.6 in) below ground surface, with an average of 42.9 cm (16.9 in). One artifact was recovered from Flackville soils, a fragment of undifferentiated whiteware from STP D18. 6.2 Negative Survey Results

The setting of the APE overlooking the Oswegatchie River suggested a moderate probability of locating

precontact artifacts. However, no precontact artifacts were recovered within the APE. While historic artifacts were recovered, most were from the B-transect which was shown to be heavily disturbed and filled in relation to road and utility construction. The historic artifacts recovered outside of fill deposits lack the diversity and density necessary to designate a site. The artifacts were not associated with a historic standing structure or a MDS and most likely represent random refuse related to the historic railway and roads. No historic sites were identified within the project area.


19

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Phase 1 archaeological survey for the Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development Project tested all areas within the APE that will be impacted by proposed construction/ground disturbance. Subsurface testing did not identify any archaeological sites within the project impact areas. We recommend that proposed plans for this project will not impact significant cultural resources. We recommend no further archaeological work within the project limits.


20

APPENDIX I. WORKS CITED Abel, Timothy J. 2001 The Clayton Cluster: Cultural Dynamics of a Late Prehistoric Village Sequence in the Upper St. Lawrence

Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University at Albany-SUNY. Beers, S.N. and D.G. 1865 New Topographical Atlas of St. Lawrence County, New York. Stone and Stewart, Philadelphia. Cook, Garrett 1987 Cultural Resources Survey Report, PIN 7006.12, Route 68, Ogdensburg/Canton, Towns of Lisbon and

Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County. SUNY Potsdam Public Archaeology Report 7(8). Curtis, Gates 1894 History of St. Lawrence County, New York: Our County and its People: A Memorial Record of St. Lawrence

County, New York. Higgison Book Company, Salem, Massachusetts. Everts, J.H., L.H. Everts, and J.M. Holcomb 1878 History of St. Lawrence County, New York. J. H Everts and Co., Philadelphia. Hartgen Archaeological Associates 2001 Phase 1B Archaeological Field Investigation, Ogdensburg International Airport Obstruction Removal

Project (94PR2116), Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York. Rensselaer, New York. 2003 Phase 1B Archaeological Field Reconnaissance, Ogdensburg International Airport, North Terminal Ramp

Development Project, Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York. Rensselaer, New York. 2012 Phase 1A Literature Review and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment, Ogdensburg International Airport

Master Plan and Obstruction Removal, Town of Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York. Rensselaer, New York.

Kastl, Richard and Christopher Hohman 2014 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Phase 2 Site Examinations, Ogdensburg Airport Project, Town of

Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton, New York. National Park Service 2000 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.,

National Park Service. New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) 1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations in New York State. New York State Historic Prehistoric Office 2005 Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements. Rogerson, A. E. 1858 Map of St. Lawrence County, New York. J. B. Shields, Philadelpha. South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1904 Ogdensburg, NY. 15-minute quadrangle. 1943 Ogdensburg East, NY. 7.5-minute quadrangle. 1978 Ogdensburg East, NY. 7.5-minute quadrangle. USDA-NRCS 2019 Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November

11, 2019.


21

APPENDIX II. STP SOIL PROFILES Pa=Pale Lt=Light Md=Medium Dk=Dark

Br=Brown Gr=Gray Yl=Yellow Ol=Olive Tn=Tan Rd=Red Bk=Black Wh=White

Si=Silt Sa=Sand Cl=Clay Lo=Loam Gvl=Gravel

P=Precontact H=Historic N=No Cultural Material

Disc.=Discarded

STP Level Depth Soil Description CM Crew Date

A1 1 0-30 Very Dk Br Cl Lo; Amorphous Iron & Low Charcoal - Disc. N TB/EA 11/4/19

A1 2 30-50 Mottled Strong Br & Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19 A2 1 0-25 Br Compact Cl Si N RLS/PB 11/4/19 A2 2 25-42 Mottled Gr Br / Strong Br Compact Cl Si N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A3 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Si Lo; Low Charcoal - Disc. N RLS/PB 11/4/19 A3 2 25-29 Very Dk Br Si Lo N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A3 3 29-49 Gr Br Sa W/ Some Cl N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A3 4 49-63 Gr Br Si Cl N RLS/PB 11/4/19 A4 1 0-35 Black Cl Sa; Beer Bottle Glass - Disc. N TB/EA 11/4/19

A4 2 35-60 Ol Br Cl Sa N TB/EA 11/4/19 A5 1 0-16 Very Dk Gr Br Si Lo; Styrofoam - Disc. N TB/EA 11/4/19

A5 2 16-40 Very Dk Gr Br Coarse Sa Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks; Low Coal Ash & Metal Slag - Disc.; Standing Water At Base Of Level

H TB/EA 11/4/19

A6 1 0-25 Br Lo Sa H RLS/PB 11/4/19

A6 2 25-42 Br Lo Sa N RLS/PB 11/4/19 A6 3 42-52 Yl Br Cl Sa W/ Standing Water; Stopped By Standing Water N RLS/PB 11/4/19 A7 1 0-25 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/4/19

A7 2 25-45 Ol Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/4/19 A8 1 0-19 Dk Br Si Lo; Charcoal & Foil - Disc. H RLS/PB 11/4/19

A8 2 19-34 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Strong Br Sa N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A8 3 34-50 Ol Br Compact Cl N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A9 1 0-28 Very Dk Br Si Lo; Low Coal - Disc. N TB/EA 11/4/19 A9 2 28-50 Dk Gr Very Compact Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/4/19

A10 1 0-14 Dk Br Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19

A10 2 14-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19 A11 1 0-30 Dk Gr Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/4/19

A11 2 30-48 Ol Br Very Compact Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19 A12 1 0-25 Br Very Compact Cl Si H RLS/PB 11/4/19 A12 2 25-40 Ol Br Very Compact Cl Si N RLS/PB 11/4/19

A13 1 0-30 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/4/19 A13 2 30-43 Ol Br Compact Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19

A14 1 0-30 Dk Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19 A14 2 30-49 Ol Br Compact Cl N TB/EA 11/4/19

A15 1 0-20 Br Lo Sa N RLS 11/5/19 A15 2 20-35 Gr Br Cl Mottled W/ Yl Br Sa N RLS 11/5/19 A16 1 0-28 Br Lo Sa; Coal - Disc. N RLS 11/5/19

A16 2 28-43 Mottled Yl Br Sa Cl Lo W/ Roots N RLS 11/5/19 A17 1 0-25 Br Lo Sa N RLS 11/5/19

A17 2 25-33 Br Lo Sa N RLS 11/5/19 A17 3 33-48 Mottled Yl Br / Strong Br Compact Sa Cl Lo N RLS 11/5/19 A18 1 0-27 Br Compact Lo Sa N RLS 11/5/19

A18 2 27-45 Mottled Ol Br / Strong Br Very Compact Cl Sa N RLS 11/5/19


22


A19 1 0-28 Br Compact Sa Cl Lo N RLS 11/5/19

A19 2 28-43 Ol Br Very Compact Cl Si N RLS 11/5/19 A20

Not Tested Due To Standing Water

RLS 11/5/19

A21 1 0-24 Br Compact Cl Si N RLS 11/5/19 A21 2 24-39 Ol / Yl Br Compact Cl N RLS 11/5/19

A22 1 0-6 Dk Gr Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A22 2 6-22 Ol Yl Br Compact Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A22 3 22-38 Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A23 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19 A23 2 25-40 Gr Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A24 1 0-10 Br Compact Lo Cl; STP Moved 1mN Due To Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A24 2 10-34 Ol Br Cl W/ Standing Water; Stopped By Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A25 1 0-10 Dk Br Cl Lo; Stopped By Standing Water N EA/TB 11/6/19

A26 1 0-30 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19 A26 2 30-49 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A27 1 0-15 Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A27 2 15-35 Ol Yl Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A28 1 0-25 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19 A28 2 25-40 Ol Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A29 1 0-13 Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A29 2 13-33 Ol Br Si Cl Lo W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A30 1 0-18 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19

A30 2 18-40 Ol Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A31 1 0-23 Dk Gr Cl Lo W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A31 2 23-40 Gr / Ol Br Compact Si Cl W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A32 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19

A32 2 20-41 Ol Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A33 1 0-18 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19 A33 2 18-40 Dk Ol Br Very Compact Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A33 3 40-60 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A34


PB/RLS 11/6/19

A35 1 0-10 Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A35 2 10-20 Dk Ol Br Si Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A35 3 20-35 Yl / Strong Br Very Compact Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A36 1 0-13 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A36 2 13-30 Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A37 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19

A37 2 20-38 Ol Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A38 1 0-22 Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A38 2 22-37 Ol Br Very Compact Cl Si N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A39 1 0-25 Dk Br Lo Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A39 2 25-45 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A40 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A40 2 25-28 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A40 3 28-46 Ol Br W/ Strong Br Redox Cl & Large Rock N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A41 1 0-29 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19

A41 2 29-50 Ol Br Sa Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19 A42 1 0-28 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA/TB 11/6/19


23


A42 2 28-48 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA/TB 11/6/19

A43 1 0-27 Br Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A43 2 27-42 Ol Br Compact Si Cl Mottled W/ Yl Br / Strong Br Si Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A44 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A44 2 25-35 Gr Ol Br / Strong Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A44 3 35-45 Gr Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A45 1 0-27 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 A45 2 27-47 Ol Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19

A46 1 0-20 Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A46 2 20-35 Gr Very Compact Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A47 1 0-26 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 A47 2 26-34 Strong Br Sa N TB/EA 11/6/19 A47 3 34-50 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19

A48 1 0-12 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A48 2 12-23 Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A48 3 23-29 Pale Yl Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A48 4 29-40 Gr Br W/ Strong Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A49 1 0-23 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 A49 2 23-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19 A50 1 0-20 Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A50 2 20-37 Gr Very Compact Cl W/ Strong Br Sa (Iron Oxidation) N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A51 1 0-17 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19

A51 2 17-32 Strong Br Cl Mottled W/ Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19 A51 3 32-50 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19 A52 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A52 2 25-26 Dk Ol Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A52 3 26-42 Pale Br / Yl Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A53 1 0-27 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 A53 2 27-43 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19

A54 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19 A54 2 25-34 Strong Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 A54 3 34-54 Ol Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19

A55 1 0-15 Md Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A55 2 15-22 Yl Rd Br Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A55 3 22-36 Gr Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A56 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 A56 2 18-41 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19

A57

Not Tested Due To Gravel Road

PB 11/5/19 A58 1 0-15 Dk Ol Br Si Cl Lo N PB 11/5/19

A58 2 15-35 Gr Br / Strong Br Redox Si Cl N PB 11/5/19 A59 1 0-15 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19

A59 2 15-35 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19 A60 1 0-7 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19 A60 2 7-31 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19

A61 1 0-8 Dk Ol Br Si Cl N PB 11/5/19 A61 2 8-32 Gr Br / Strong Br Redox Si Cl N PB 11/5/19

A62 1 0-3 Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19 A62 2 3-31 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19


24


A63 1 0-21 Lt Gr Br Cl - Fill H TB/EA 11/5/19

A63 2 21-30 Strong Br Cl Mottled W/ Lt Gr Br Cl - Fill N TB/EA 11/5/19 A63 3 30-40 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19

A63 4 40-56 Lt Gr Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19 A64 1 0-19 Dk Ol Br Si Cl N PB 11/5/19

A64 2 19-36 Ol Br Si Cl N PB 11/5/19 B1 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Lo - Fill H PB/RLS 11/7/19 B1 2 25-33 Dk Br Sa Lo - Fill N PB/RLS 11/7/19

B1 3 33-52 Gley Cl Mottled W/ Dk Br Sa Cl (Fill) N PB/RLS 11/7/19 B2 1 0-10 Very Dk Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

B2 2 10-35 Dk Ol Br Cl; Asphalt - Disc.; Stopped By Standing Water N TB/EA 11/7/19 B3 1 0-21 Dk Gr Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 B3 2 21-32 Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19

B3 3 32-50 Strong Br Sa Cl; East 1/2 - Dk Br Sa Lo Intrusion N PB/RLS 11/7/19 B4


PB/RLS 11/7/19

B5 1 0-32 Very Dk Gr Br Sa Lo W/ Gvl ( Fill); Coal & Coal Ash - Disc. H TB/EA 11/7/19 B5 2 32-50 Ol Br Cl Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

B6 1 0-36 Dk Br Sa Lo; Beer Bottle Glass - Disc.; Stopped By Standing Water N TB/EA 11/7/19 B7 1 0-19 Dk Br Sa Lo W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 B7 2 19-27 Dk Br Sa Lo W/ Standing Water; Trash At 19 cmbd N PB/RLS 11/7/19

B7 3 27-39 Dk Yl Br Sa W/ Standing Water & Rocks; Stopped By Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 B8 1 0-24 Dk Ol Br Lo Cl N PB 11/6/19

B8 2 24-38 Dk Gr Br W/ Strong Br Sa N PB 11/6/19 B9 1 0-37 Dk Br Sa Lo; Beer Bottle Glass - Disc.; Stopped By Standing Water N TB 11/6/19

B10 1 0-14 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Gvl N PB 11/6/19

B10 2 14-28 Dk Ol Br Sa Lo W/ Gvl H PB 11/6/19

B10 3 28-50 Yl Br Sa Lo W/ Gvl; Coal Throughout STP; All Levels Are Fill; Stopped By Standing Water ( STP Filled Quickly)

N PB 11/6/19

B11 1 0-30 Very Dk Br Sa Lo Mixed W/ Dk Yl Br Cl Lo W/ Some Rocks (Fill) N EA 11/6/19 B11 2 30-60 Very Dk Br Sa Lo Mixed W/ Dk Yl Br Cl Lo W/ Some Rocks (Fill);

Stopped By Standing Water H EA 11/6/19

B12 1 0-20 Very Dk Br Si Lo N EA 11/6/19 B12 2 20-31 Dk Yl Br Sa Mixed W/ Dk Br Sa Lo & Rocks N EA 11/6/19 B12 3 31-55 Very Dk Gr Br Sa Lo W/ Rocks (Fill); Ceramic Drain Pipe - Disc.; Stopped

By Standing Water H EA 11/6/19

B13 1 0-30 Dk Br Sa Lo; Coal, Coal Ash & Brick - Disc. N TB 11/6/19 B13 2 30-45 Dk Gr Br Cl Lo W/ Grit; Coal, Coal Ash & Styrofoam - Disc. H TB 11/6/19

B13 3 45-60 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/6/19 B14 1 0-21 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/6/19

B14 2 21-29 Ol Br Lo Cl N PB 11/6/19

B14 3 29-34 Dk Gr Br Si Lo N PB 11/6/19 B14 4 34-55 Dk Gr Br Si Lo W/ Pale Br Sa H PB 11/6/19

B14 5 55-63 Pale Br Sa; Stopped By Utility N PB 11/6/19 B15 1 0-15 Dk Br Sa Lo; Plastic - Disc. N TB 11/6/19

B15 2 15-28 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/6/19 B15 3 28-44 Ol Br / Dk Gr Br Sa Cl W/ Natural Gvl N TB 11/6/19

B16 1 0-21 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B16 2 21-27 Ol Br / Strong Br Sa Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B16 3 27-53 Very Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19


25


B16 4 53-65 Pale Br / Strong Br Sa; Stopped By Utility N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B17 1 0-23 Dk Br Sa Lo Mixed W/ Yl Br Cl Lo - Compact Fill W/ Gvl & Rocks N EA 11/6/19 B17 2 23-40 Dk Yl Br Sa Mixed W/ Ol Br Cl - Compact Fill W/ Gvl & Rocks N EA 11/6/19

B17 3 40-50 Dk Br Sa Lo N EA 11/6/19 B17 4 50-70 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/6/19

B18 1 0-12 Dk Br Sa Lo W/ Yl Br Sa Lo - Compact Fill N EA 11/6/19 B18 2 12-22 Dk Br Sa Lo W/ Rocks - Compact Fill N EA 11/6/19 B18 3 22-37 Gr Br Cl Lo Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl Lo W/ Rocks - Compact Fill;

Stopped By Large Rock N EA 11/6/19

B19 1 0-17 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B19 2 17-25 Strong Br Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B19 3 25-30 Ol Br Compact Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B19 4 30-32 Very Dk Gr Br Coarse Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B19 5 32-54 Yl Br Sa W/ Large Rocks N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B19 6 54-71 Gr Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B20 1 0-22 Dk Br Sa Lo; Plastic - Disc. H TB 11/6/19

B20 2 22-32 Br Si Sa W/ Road Gvl H TB 11/6/19 B20 3 32-60 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/6/19

B21 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl Lo; Coal - Disc. N TB 11/6/19 B21 2 20-43 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/6/19 B22 1 0-15 Dk Ol Br Sa; Drinking Straw - Disc. N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B22 2 15-36 Gr Sa Mottled W/ Strong Br Sa H PB/RLS 11/6/19 B22 3 36-55 Gr Cl, Ol Br Cl & Strong Br Sa; Asphalt - Disc. N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B22 4 55-70 Pale Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B23 1 0-12 Dk Br Si Lo - Compact Fill N EA 11/6/19 B23 2 12-27 Dk Br Si Lo Mottled W/ Gr Br Cl - Compact Fill N EA 11/6/19

B23 3 27-40 Dk Br Coarse Sa W/ Heavy Gvl - Compact Fill N EA 11/6/19

B23 4 40-54 Br Sa (Poss. Fill) N EA 11/6/19

B23 5 54-70 Gr Br Cl Lo Mixed W/ Dk Br Cl Lo (Poss. Fill) N EA 11/6/19 B24 1 0-19 Dk Br Cl Lo; Stopped By Blacktop (Parking Lot) N TB 11/6/19

B25 1 0-10 Very Dk Br Si Lo N EA 11/6/19 B25 2 10-38 Dk Br Cl Lo Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl Lo N EA 11/6/19 B25 3 38-60 Lt Gr Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA 11/6/19

B26 1 0-18 Dk Br Cl Lo; Charcoal - Disc. N TB/EA 11/6/19 B26 2 18-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19

B27 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B27 2 25-34 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B27 3 34-47 Gr Br Lo Cl W/ Gvl H PB/RLS 11/6/19

B27 4 47-64 Ol Yl Br W/ Strong Br Sa Cl; Slow Water Seepage N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B28 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl Lo; Modern Bottle Glass - Disc. N TB/EA 11/6/19

B28 2 20-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/6/19 B29 1 0-22 Dk Br Sa Lo N EA 11/6/19

B29 2 22-40 Dk Br Sa Lo Mottled W/ Dk Yl Br Sa Lo N EA 11/6/19 B29 3 40-58 Lt Gr Cl Lo Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/6/19 B30 1 0-13 Dk Br Si Lo; Modern Bottle Glass & Automotive Glass From Fill On

Surface - Disc. N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B30 2 13-37 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B30 3 37-50 Dk Gr Br Cl Lo W/ Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B30 4 50-68 Pale Ol Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/6/19


26


B31 1 0-20 Very Dk Gr Br Si Cl Lo W/ Gvl & Rocks N PB/RLS 11/6/19

B31 2 20-28 Ol Br Cl Si N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B31 3 28-45 Dk Br Si Cl Lo W/ Standing Water H PB/RLS 11/6/19

B31 4 45-59 Pale Yl Br / Ol Br Cl Si W/ Rocks & Standing Water; Stopped By Rocks N PB/RLS 11/6/19 B32 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo - Fill N TB/EA 11/6/19

B32 2 18-34 Dk Br Si Lo Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl Lo - Fill N TB/EA 11/6/19 B32 3 34-43 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/6/19 B32 4 43-58 Lt Gr Sa; Standing Water At Base N TB/EA 11/6/19

C1 1 0-32 Dk Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19 C1 2 32-50 Gr Br Sa N TB/EA 11/5/19

C2 1 0-22 Ol Br Si Cl N PB 11/5/19 C2 2 22-39 Gr W/ Strong Br Redox Si Cl N PB 11/5/19 C3 1 0-27 Dk Br Cl Lo; Window Glass & Low Charcoal - Disc. N TB/EA 11/5/19

C3 2 27-45 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19 C4 1 0-23 Dk Br Si Lo H PB 11/5/19

C4 2 23-40 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Redox Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19 C5 1 0-30 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19

C5 2 30-45 Ol Br Cl W/ Strong Br Mottles N TB/EA 11/5/19 C6 1 0-22 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C6 2 22-41 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19

C7 1 0-30 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19 C7 2 30-50 Ol Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19

C8 1 0-21 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C8 2 21-43 Dk Ol Br Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19 C8 3 43-60 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Cl N PB 11/5/19

C9 1 0-30 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/5/19

C9 2 30-45 Ol Br Cl W/ Standing Water N TB/EA 11/5/19

C10 1 0-16 Lt Gr Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19 C10 2 16-41 Very Dk Gr Br Cl Lo; Stopped By Standing Water N EA 11/5/19

C11 1 0-25 Dk Br Cl Lo N PB 11/5/19 C11 2 25-31 Dk Br Cl Lo N PB 11/5/19 C11 3 31-49 Ol Br Cl W/ Strong Br Redox Cl N PB 11/5/19

C12 1 0-26 Dk Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19 C12 2 26-44 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/5/19

C13 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19 C13 2 20-39 Ol Br Cl N EA 11/5/19 C14 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Cl Lo N PB 11/5/19

C14 2 25-29 Dk Br Si Cl Lo N PB 11/5/19 C14 3 29-46 Ol Br Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19

C15 1 0-25 Very Dk Gr Br Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19 C15 2 25-41 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/5/19

C16 1 0-15 Very Dk Gr Br Cl Lo W/ Standing Water; Stopped By Standing Water N EA 11/5/19 C17 1 0-28 Very Dk Gr Br Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19 C17 2 28-45 Ol Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/5/19

C18 1 0-24 Dk Br Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19 C18 2 24-40 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA 11/5/19

C19 1 0-24 Dk Br Cl N TB 11/5/19 C19 2 24-42 Ol Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB 11/5/19


27


C20 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Cl Lo; Coal - Disc. N PB 11/5/19

C20 2 25-40 Gr W/ Strong Br Lo Cl; Standing Water At 35 cmbd N PB 11/5/19 C21 1 0-25 Very Gr Br Sa Lo N EA 11/5/19

C21 2 25-48 Ol Br Sa Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Sa Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/5/19 C22 1 0-25 Very Dk Gr Br Cl Lo N EA 11/5/19

C22 2 25-42 Ol Br Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Cl N EA 11/5/19 C23 1 0-24 Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C23 2 24-40 Pale Br Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19

C24 1 0-20 Dk Br Cl N TB 11/5/19 C24 2 20-41 Ol Br Cl W/ Strong Br Mottles; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB 11/5/19

C25 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C25 2 25-27 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C25 3 27-44 Ol Br W/ Strong Br Cl N PB 11/5/19

C26 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C26 2 25-49 Gley Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N PB 11/5/19

C27 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C27 2 25-31 Very Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19

C27 3 31-47 Ol Br Sa N PB 11/5/19 C28 1 0-30 Very Dk Gr Sa Lo; Stopped By Standing Water N EA 11/5/19 C29 1 0-31 Very Dk Br Si Lo N JF/PB 11/5/19

C29 2 31-47 Gr Br Sa N JF/PB 11/5/19 C30 1 0-26 Very Dk Br Si Lo N JF/PB 11/5/19

C30 2 26-43 Gr Cl N JF/PB 11/5/19 C31 1 0-26 Very Dk Br Si Lo N JF/PB 11/5/19 C31 2 26-42 Gr Cl N JF/PB 11/5/19

C32 1 0-28 Very Dk Gr Sa Lo N EA 11/5/19

C32 2 28-50 Lt Ol Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N EA 11/5/19

C33 1 0-35 Very Dk Br Cl Sa N TB 11/5/19 C33 2 35-50 Ol Br Sa; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB 11/5/19

C34 1 0-24 Very Dk Br Sa Cl N TB 11/5/19 C34 2 24-45 Ol Br Cl Sa N TB 11/5/19 C35 1 0-30 Gr Br Cl N TB 11/5/19

C35 2 30-45 Lt Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB 11/5/19 C36 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo N PB 11/5/19

C36 2 18-35 Gr Sa Cl N PB 11/5/19 C37 1 0-26 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N TB 11/5/19 C37 2 26-42 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/5/19

C38 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB 11/5/19 C38 2 25-28 Dk Br Sa Si Lo N PB 11/5/19

C38 3 28-45 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Redox Sa; Standing Water At 30 cmbd N PB 11/5/19 C39 1 0-23 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N TB 11/5/19

C39 2 23-40 Ol Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB 11/5/19 C40 1 0-29 Very Dk Gr Sa Lo N EA 11/5/19 C40 2 29-50 Ol Br Sa Cl Mottled W/ Strong Br Sa Cl N EA 11/5/19

C41 1 0-26 Very Dk Br Sa Cl N TB 11/5/19 C41 2 26-41 Ol Br Cl N TB 11/5/19

C42 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N JF/PB 11/5/19 C42 2 25-28 Dk Br Si Lo N JF/PB 11/5/19


28


C42 3 28-44 Ol Br Cl W/ Strong Br Redox Cl N JF/PB 11/5/19

C43 1 0-21 Dk Ol Br N JF/PB 11/5/19 C43 2 21-43 Pale Br W/ Strong Br Compact Cl Sa N JF/PB 11/5/19

D1 1 0-14 Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D1 2 14-30 Ol Br Cl W/ Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D2 1 0-10 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N TB/EA 11/7/19 D2 2 10-21 Strong Br Si Lo W/ Rocks; Stopped By Large Rock N TB/EA 11/7/19 D3 1 0-15 Ol Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D3 2 15-25 Ol Br / Strong Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D4 1 0-15 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D4 2 15-35 Dk Gr Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D4 3 35-60 Dk Gr Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D5 1 0-15 Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D5 2 15-35 Gr Br / Strong Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D6 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D6 2 20-40 Ol Br Si Cl W/ Gvl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D7 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D7 2 30-43 Ol Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D8 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D8 2 20-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19

D9 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D9 2 20-38 Ol Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D10 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D10 2 25-50 Strong Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D11 1 0-23 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D11 2 23-38 Yl Br / Strong Br Sa Mottled W/ Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D11 3 38-50 Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D12 1 0-19 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D12 2 19-30 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19

D12 3 30-48 Strong Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D13 1 0-26 Dk Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D13 2 26-46 Dk Ol Br / Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D14 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D14 2 18-38 Pale Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D15 1 0-28 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D15 2 28-45 Strong Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D16 1 0-35 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D16 2 35-53 Ol Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D17 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D17 2 20-35 Ol Br / Strong Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D18 1 0-27 Dk Br Si Cl H JF/ST 11/7/19

D18 2 27-49 Strong Br Cl Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D19 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D19 2 30-52 Strong Br Sa Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

D20 1 0-30 Very Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D20 2 30-50 Ol Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19

D21 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D21 2 25-31 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19


29


D21 3 31-47 Gr Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D22 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D22 2 25-41 Ol Br Cl Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N JF/ST 11/7/19

D23 1 0-39 Black Si Lo W/ Organics - Wetland Soil; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19 D24 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D24 2 25-29 Very Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D24 3 29-46 Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D25 1 0-29 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D25 2 29-40 Ol Br Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D26 1 0-20 Very Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D26 2 20-40 Strong Br Sa Cl Mottled W/ Ol Br Sa Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19 D27 1 0-25 Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D27 2 25-41 Dk Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D27 3 41-57 Pale Br / Strong Br Cl Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D28 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D28 2 20-30 Strong Br Sa Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19 D29 1 0-23 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D29 2 23-40 Ol Br Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D30 1 0-21 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D30 2 21-40 Strong Br Sa N TB/EA 11/7/19

D31 1 0-21 Dk Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D31 2 21-40 Ol Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D32 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Sa N JF/ST 11/7/19 D32 2 20-41 Strong Br Sa W/ Pale Yl Si Sa N JF/ST 11/7/19 D33 1 0-20 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D33 2 20-30 Strong Br / Dk Br Sa N TB/EA 11/7/19

D34 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D34 2 25-30 Dk Ol Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D34 3 30-44 Very Dk Gr Br Lo Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D34 4 44-60 Pale Ol Br W/ Strong Br Sa N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D35 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D35 2 25-38 Strong Br Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D36 1 0-24 Very Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D36 2 24-40 Dk Yl Br Sa Lo W/ Ol Br Sa Lo; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

D37 1 0-17 Dk Gr Br Cl Lo W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D37 2 17-30 Ol Br Cl W/ Standing Water; Stopped By Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D38 1 0-18 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D38 2 18-35 Ol Br / Strong Br Cl; Standing Water At 30 cmbd N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D39


TB/EA 11/7/19

D40 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D40 2 20-40 Dk Yl Br Sa Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

D41 1 0-20 Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D41 2 20-35 Ol Br Cl W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D42 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D42 2 25-45 Ol Br Sa Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19 D43 1 0-23 Dk Br Wet Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D43 2 23-38 Ol Br Wet Cl Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D44 1 0-25 Dk Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19


30


D44 2 25-40 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19

D45 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D45 2 30-45 Ol Br Cl Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D46 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D46 2 20-38 Ol Br Cl Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D47 1 0-16 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D47 2 16-33 Ol Br / Ol Yl Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D48 1 0-30 Very Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D48 2 30-45 Ol Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D49 1 0-15 Very Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D49 2 15-39 Gr Br Sa Lo W/ High Density Of Gvl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D50 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D50 2 25-35 Dk Br Sa Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D50 3 35-55 Dk Gr / Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D51 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D51 2 18-38 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D52 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D52 2 25-32 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D52 3 32-48 Ol Br / Strong Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D53 1 0-18 Dk Ol Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D53 2 18-36 Ol Br Sa Si Lo W/ Dense Fill Gvl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D53 3 36-53 Gr Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D54 1 0-20 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D54 2 20-35 Ol Yl Br Lo Cl W/ Standing Water N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D55 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D55 2 30-47 Ol Br Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

D56 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Si Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D56 2 25-42 Gley Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D57 1 0-20 Very Dk Br Si Sa Lo; Stopped By Standing Water N JF/ST 11/7/19

D58


JF/ST 11/7/19 D59


JF/ST 11/7/19

D60


JF/ST 11/7/19

D61 1 0-17 Very Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D61 2 17-38 Ol Br Cl Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D62 1 0-20 Very Dk Br Si Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 D62 2 20-35 Black Gr Gley Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D63 1 0-23 Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D63 2 23-38 Gr / Ol Br Compact Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D64 1 0-25 Very Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D64 2 25-26 Very Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D64 3 26-43 Gley / Ol Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D65 1 0-28 Very Dk Br Si Lo W/ Roots N TB/EA 11/7/19 D65 2 28-44 Ol Br Sa Cl W/ Roots N TB/EA 11/7/19 D66 1 0-15 Gr Br Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D66 2 15-35 Gr / Strong Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D67 1 0-37 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D67 2 37-50 Ol Br Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D68 1 0-18 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Roots N TB/EA 11/7/19


31


D68 2 18-38 Dk Yl Br Cl Lo W/ Roots; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19

D69 1 0-17 Very Dk Br Si Lo W/ Rocks N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D69 2 17-34 Ol Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D70 1 0-25 Dk Ol Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D70 2 25-40 Ol Br Si Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D71 1 0-20 Dk Br Si Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19 D71 2 20-43 Ol Br Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 D72 1 0-30 Dk Br Si Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19

D72 2 30-50 Ol Br Cl N JF/ST 11/7/19 D73 1 0-24 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

D73 2 24-44 Ol Br Lo Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D73 3 44-55 Yl Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 D74 1 0-35 Dk Br Sa Lo N TB/EA 11/7/19

D74 2 35-57 Yl Br Sa Lo W/ Mottled Ol Br Sa Cl; Standing Water At Base Of Level N TB/EA 11/7/19 D75 1 0-14 Gr Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

D75 2 14-36 Yl Br Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 E1 1 0-11 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

E1 2 11-29 Dk Ol Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19 E2 1 0-23 Dk Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 E2 2 23-41 Ol Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

E3 1 0-24 Dk Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19 E3 2 24-40 Ol Br Si Sa Lo N JF/ST 11/7/19

E4 1 0-27 Very Dk Br Sa Cl N EA 11/5/19 E4 2 27-43 Ol Br Cl N EA 11/5/19 F1 1 0-25 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

F1 2 25-28 Dk Br Si Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

F1 3 28-48 Yl Br Sa Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19

F2 1 0-35 Dk Br Si Lo W/ Roots; Stopped By Roots N TB/EA 11/7/19 F3 1 0-30 Very Dk Br Si Lo (Fill); Coal Ash, Slag, Brick & Mortar - Disc. H TB/EA 11/7/19

F3 2 30-52 Very Dk Br Si Lo (Fill); Coal Ash, Slag, Brick & Mortar - Disc. N TB/EA 11/7/19 F3 3 52-76 Yl Br Sa Cl N TB/EA 11/7/19 F4 1 0-25 Dk Br Sa Lo; Asphalt - Disc. N PB/RLS 11/7/19

F4 2 25-30 Dk Br Sa Lo; Asphalt - Disc. N PB/RLS 11/7/19 F4 3 30-45 Dk Ol Br Si Cl Lo N PB/RLS 11/7/19

F5 1 0-24 Dk Ol Br Cl Lo H PB/RLS 11/7/19 F5 2 24-40 Pale Br / Strong Br Cl N PB/RLS 11/7/19


32

APPENDIX III. STP ARTIFACT CATALOG

STP Level Depth Description Comments Ct. Wt(g) Begin

Date

End

Date

A5 2 16-40 Glass Aqua Bottle-Unid.

1 1.5

A5 2 16-40 Bone Large Mammal Sawed 1 23.5

A6 1 0-25 Ferrous Metal Cut Nail Frag

1 1.8

A6 1 0-25 Ferrous Metal Undiag.

1 6.6

A8 1 0-19 Glass Embossed Amber Bottle-Unid. Probably 1 Bottle; Fragments Of Letters

74 53.1

A8 1 0-19 Ferrous Metal Cut Nail Frag

4 12.4

A8 1 0-19 Ferrous Metal Undiag.

1 1.6

A12 1 0-25 Window Glass

1 1.1

A63 1 0-21 Glass Clear Undiff. Glass

1 1.6

B1 1 0-33 Porcelain Button Prosser; 4-Hole 1 0.3 1849 2019 B1 1 0-33 Ferrous Metal Undiag.

2 15.8

B5 1 0-32 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid.

2 7.0

B10 2 14-28 Ironstone Undiff. Ceramic

1 1.1 1850 2019 B10 2 14-28 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid. Fully Automated; External

Thread Finish 1 9.3 1925 2019

B11 2 30-60 Ferrous Metal Cut Nail Frag

1 4.8

B11 2 30-60 Bone Large Mammal Sawed 1 3.9

B12 3 31-55 Ferrous Metal Undiag. Poss. Bolt 1 67.2

B13 2 30-45 Kaolin Pipe Stem Frag

1 2.0

B13 2 30-45 Window Glass

1 0.8

B13 2 30-45 Glass Amber Bottle-Unid.

1 0.6

B14 4 34-55 Bone Large Mammal Sawed 2 5.1

B20 1 0-22 BoneMammal

1 1.3

B20 2 22-32 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid.

2 1.4

B22 2 15-36 Ferrous Metal Undiag.

2 1.9

B27 3 34-47 Ferrous Metal Undiag.

4 6.0

B31 3 28-45 Ferrous Metal Undiag. Nail Frag.

2 4.9

C4 1 0-23 Glass Clear Bottle-Unid.

1 1.8

D18 1 0-27 Whiteware Undiff. Ceramic

1 0.3 1830 2019

F3 1 0-30 Bone Mammal

1 2.1

F5 1 0-24 Porcelain Faintly Molded Tableware/Teaware Plate

W/ Floral Decal 1 5.8 1890 1950

Public Archaeology Facility Phase 1B Archaeological Survey: Ogdensburg International Airport Phase 1 Development Project

33

APPENDIX IV. PROJECT MAPS


34


35


36

CLIENT MAPS


APPENDIX D:

Agencies Correspondence



AppendicesD


D

Appendices

(Additional documentation would be included when available in the Final EA)

• Agencies Correspondence

APPENDIX D.



AppendicesD

December 16, 2019

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

New York Ecological Services Field Office3817 Luker Road

Cortland, NY 13045-9385Phone: (607) 753-9334 Fax: (607) 753-9699

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm

In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 05E1NY00-2020-SLI-0970 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041 Project Name: Ogdensburg TAP EA Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project

location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This list can also be used to determine whether listed species may be present for projects without federal agency involvement. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list.

Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC site at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. If listed, proposed, or candidate species were identified as potentially occurring in the project area, coordination with our office is encouraged. Information on the steps involved with assessing potential impacts from projects can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/




http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html

12/16/2019 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041 2

▪

eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the Services wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the ESA. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

Official Species List

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm

http://www.towerkill.com/

http://www.towerkill.com/

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html

12/16/2019 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041 1

Official Species ListThis list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

New York Ecological Services Field Office3817 Luker RoadCortland, NY 13045-9385(607) 753-9334

12/16/2019 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041 2

Project SummaryConsultation Code: 05E1NY00-2020-SLI-0970

Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041

Project Name: Ogdensburg TAP EA

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION

Project Description: Drainage, access road, apron, taxiway, terminal

Project Location:Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/44.680279910083215N75.47370358439585W

Counties: St. Lawrence, NY

https://www.google.com/maps/place/44.680279910083215N75.47370358439585W

https://www.google.com/maps/place/44.680279910083215N75.47370358439585W

12/16/2019 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2020-E-03041 3

1.

Endangered Species Act SpeciesThere is a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

MammalsNAME STATUS

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalisNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

Threatened

Critical habitatsTHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

1

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

david

Typewriter


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYBUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

1776 NIAGARA STREETBUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207-3199

REPLY TO

May 19, 2015

Regulatory Branch

SUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Approved Jurisdictional Determinationfor Department of the Army Application No. 2001-01199

Mr. Wade DavisOgdensburg Bridge and Port Authority1 Bridge PlazaOgdensburg, New York 13669 2015

7

Dear Mr. Davis:

I am writing to you in regard to the recent application for a Department of the Army (DA)permit submitted on behalf of the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority for the proposedOgdensburg International Airport expansion, located along New York State Route 812, City ofOgdensburg, St. Lawrence County, New York.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over thedischarge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, asdefined in 33 CFR Part 328.3.

I have evaluated your submitted wetland delineation map and have determined that thewetland and water boundaries shown on the map accurately represent on-site conditions. I amhereby verifying the wetland and water boundaries depicted on Sheet 2 with a preliminary and anapproved jurisdictional determination.

1. Approved Jurisdictional Determination, Attachments A, B, C and D for Wetlands A, B,

D, E, F, G, I. J. L. N. O, P, O, R and S

I am hereby verifying the Federal wetland boundary as shown on the attached wetlanddelineation map dated July 2014. This verification was confirmed on May 19, 2015 and willremain valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this correspondence unless newinformation warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration. At the end of this period,a new wetland delineation will be required if a project has not been completed on this propertyand additional impacts are proposed for WOUS. Further, this delineation/determination has beenconducted to identify the limits of the Corps CWA jurisdiction for the particular site identified inthis request. This delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservationprovisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are United States

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

-2-Regulatory BranchSUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Approved Jurisdictional Determinationfor Department of the Army Application No. 2001-01199

Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants, or anticipate participation in USDAprograms, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of theNatural Resource Conservation Service prior to starting work.

Based upon my review of the submitted delineation and on-site observations, I havedetermined that wetland areas F, D, A, B, G, L, P, M and S on the subject parcel are part of asurface water tributary system to a navigable water of the United States as noted on the attachedJurisdictional Determination (JD) form. Therefore, the wetlands are regulated under Section 404of the CWA. DA authorization is required if you propose a discharge of dredged or fill materialin these areas.

Also, I have determined that there is no clear surface water connection or ecologicalcontinuum between wetland areas Q, R, I, N, J and E on the parcel and a surface tributary systemto a navigable water of the United States. Therefore, these waters are considered isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters and not regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Accordingly, youdo not need DA authorization to commence work in these areas.

In addition, I have determined Wetland O is a non-jurisdictional water that is a man-made,actively maintained drainage swale that is associated with the airport’s stormwater conveyancesystem.

Finally, this correspondence contains approved JD’s Attachment A-D for the subjectparcel for Wetlands A, B, D, E, F, G, I, J, L, N, O, P, Q, R and S. If you object to thesedeterminations, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFRPart 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Requestfor Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal the above determinations, you must submit acompleted RFA form within 60 days of the date on this letter to the Great Lakes/Ohio RiverDivision Office at the following address:

Review OfficerGreat Lakes and Ohio River DivisionCELRD-PDS-0550 Main Street, Room 10032Cincinnati, OH 45202-3222Phone: 513-684-6212

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it iscomplete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 C.F.R. part 331.5, and that it has beenreceived by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide tosubmit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by July 19, 2105.

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

david

Highlight

-3-

Regulatory BranchSUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Approved Jurisdictional Determinationfor Department of the Army Application No. 2001-01199

It is not necessary to submit an RFA to the Division office if you do not object to thedetermination in this letter.

2. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, Attachment E for Wetland M

Please note that this is a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for wetland M.Preliminary JDs are non-binding written indications that there may be waters of the United Stateson your parcel and approximate locations of those waters. Preliminary JDs are advisory in natureand may not be appealed.

Pursuant to Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02, any permit application made in reliance onthis Preliminary JD will be evaluated as though all wetlands or waters outlined on Attachment Bare regulated by the Corps. Further, all waters, including wetlands on Attachment B will be usedfor purposes of assessing the area of project related impacts and compensatory mitigation. Ifyou require a definitive response regarding Department of the Army jurisdiction for any or all ofthe waters identified on Attachment B, you may request an approved jurisdictional determinationfrom this office. If an approved jurisdictional determination is requested, please be aware thatthis is often a lengthy process and we may require the submittal of additional information.

I have enclosed the Preliminary JD Form, Attachment b, with this letter. The form andattached table identifies the extent of waters on the site and specific terms and conditions of thePreliminary JD. Please sign and return a copy of this form to my attention so that I may completemy evaluation of your file. If you do not respond within fifteen days of this letter, December 16,2014,1will assume you no longer wish to pursue the jurisdictional determination and willwithdraw your application.

In accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02, “Preliminary jurisdictionaldeterminations are not definitive determinations of areas within regulatory jurisdiction and do nothave expirations dates.” However, I strongly recommend that the boundaries of waters of the UnitedStates identified on Attachment B be re-evaluated by a qualified wetland biologist after five years ofthe date of this letter. This will ensure that any changes are appropriately identified and you do notinadvertently incur a violation of Federal law while constructing your project or working on yourproject site.

Lastly, the Preliminary and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations have been conductedonly to identify the limits of waters that may be subject to Corps Clean Water Act or Rivers andHarbors Act jurisdiction. This delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetlandconservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant areUSDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request acertified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resource ConservationService prior to starting work.

-4-

Regulatory BranchSUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Approved Jurisdictional Determinationfor Department of the Army Application No. 2001-01199

A copy of this correspondence has been sent to Mr. Thomas Wirickx of McFarlandJohnson.

Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to me by calling (716) 879-4279,by writing to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street,Buffalo, New York 14207, or by e-mail at: [email protected]

Sincerely,

Joseph RowleyPhysical Scientist

Enclosures


APPENDIX E:

Public Involvement



AppendicesE


E

Appendices

(Documentation would be included when available in the Final EA)

• Public Involvement

APPENDIX E.



AppendicesE

draft - ogsair.com · 3.3 terminal area plan alternatives comparison..... 3-23 3.4 drainage...

Documents