Sei sulla pagina 1di 218

APPENDIX W

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact of the Upstate NY


Power Transmission Line Article VII Application

UPSTATE NY POWER CORP


UPSTATE NY POWER TRANSMISSION LINE

EXHIBIT 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION

PAGE

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ......................................................................................................... 1


4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
4.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 3
4.2.1 Proposed Route Structure Representation ..................................................................... 4
4.2.2 Description of Proposed Route ..................................................................................... 4
4.2.3 Vegetation Clearing..................................................................................................... 6
4.2.4 Proposed Project Facilities ........................................................................................... 7
4.2.4.1 Substations........................................................................................................ 7
4.2.4.2 Transition Structures & Underground Construction ................................................ 8
4.3 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Right-of-Way Clearing........................................................................................................ 19
4.4.1 Overhead Transmission Line Clearing ......................................................................... 20
4.4.2 Underground Cable Clearing ...................................................................................... 21
4.4.3 Substation Clearing ................................................................................................... 21
4.5 Access Roads .................................................................................................................... 21
4.6 Construction ..................................................................................................................... 22
4.6.1 Structure Installation................................................................................................. 23
4.6.2 Structure Installation in Wetland Areas ....................................................................... 23
4.6.3 Stringing of Conductors ............................................................................................. 23
4.6.4 Clean-up and Restoration .......................................................................................... 24
4.6.5 Material Storage Yards and Staging Areas ................................................................... 24
4.6.6 Underground Construction ......................................................................................... 25
4.6.7 Subaquatic Cable Construction ................................................................................... 25
4.7 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.7.1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 26
4.7.2 Jefferson County Land Use ........................................................................................ 27
4.7.3 Oswego County Land Use .......................................................................................... 28
4.7.4 Transportation Systems............................................................................................. 28
4.7.4.1 Roadways and Traffic ....................................................................................... 28
4.7.4.2 Airports ........................................................................................................... 29
4.7.4.3 Railroads ......................................................................................................... 29
4.7.4.4 Navigable Waterways ....................................................................................... 29
4.7.5 Land Use Impacts and Mitigation................................................................................ 30
4.7.5.1 Land Use and Agriculture .................................................................................. 30
4.7.5.2 Transportation Systems .................................................................................... 30
4.7.6 Applicable Land Use Management Plans and Coastal Zone Management Policies ............ 31
4.7.6.1 Applicable Land Use Management Plans ............................................................. 31
4.7.6.2 Consistency with New York State Coastal Zone Management Policies .................... 33
4.8 Visual Assessment of Transmission Lines ............................................................................. 33
4.8.1 Visual Studies Conducted........................................................................................... 33
4.8.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................... 34
4.8.2.1 Landscape Character and Visual Setting ............................................................. 34
4.8.2.2 Viewshed Mapping ........................................................................................... 36
4.8.2.3 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ........................................................... 37
4.8.2.4 Other Factors Affecting Potential Visual Impacts ................................................. 39
4.8.2.5 Anticipated Project Visibility .............................................................................. 42
4.8.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .................................................................. 43
4.8.3.1 Potential Visual Impacts during Construction ...................................................... 44
4.8.3.2 Project Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns ....................................... 44

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


SECTION

PAGE

4.8.3.3 Potential Visual Impacts on Inventoried Resources.............................................. 45


4.8.3.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 49
4.9 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 50
4.9.1 Archaeological Assessment ........................................................................................ 51
4.9.1.1 Existing Conditions Upland Route.................................................................... 52
4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Subaquatic Route .............................................................. 53
4.9.2 Historic Architecture Assessment................................................................................ 54
4.9.2.1 Existing Conditions Upland Route.................................................................... 54
4.9.3 Effects and Mitigation, Area of Potential Effect............................................................. 55
4.9.3.1 Upland Route................................................................................................... 55
4.9.3.2 Subaquatic Route ............................................................................................. 57
4.9.3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................... 57
4.10 Natural Resources............................................................................................................ 57
4.10.1 Subaquatic Biota and Habitat ................................................................................... 58
4.10.1.1 Lake Ontario .................................................................................................. 58
4.10.1.2 Subaquatic Vegetation .................................................................................... 58
4.10.1.3 Fish............................................................................................................... 60
4.10.1.4 Benthos......................................................................................................... 63
4.10.1.5 Protected Aquatic Species and Habitats ............................................................ 66
4.10.2 Upland Biota and Habitat ......................................................................................... 67
4.10.2.1 Upland Vegetation Communities ...................................................................... 67
4.10.2.2 Birds, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources ............................................................... 73
4.10.2.3 Protected Upland Species and Habitats............................................................. 81
4.11 Physical Resources........................................................................................................... 88
4.11.1 Existing Conditions - Upland Transmission Line .......................................................... 88
4.11.1.1 Geologic Setting and Topography ..................................................................... 88
4.11.1.2 Geology.......................................................................................................... 89
4.11.1.3 Mines and Wells ............................................................................................. 94
4.11.1.4 National Natural Landmarks and Unique Geologic Features ................................. 95
4.11.1.5 Soil Types Along Proposed Route ...................................................................... 95
4.11.1.6 Erosion Hazard............................................................................................... 97
4.11.1.7 Prime Farmland.............................................................................................. 97
4.11.1.8 Farmland of Statewide Importance .................................................................. 98
4.11.1.9 Hydric Soils and Depth to High Groundwater Table............................................ 98
4.11.1.10 Depth to Bedrock.......................................................................................... 99
4.11.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Upland Transmission Line.............................100
4.11.3 Existing Conditions - Subaquatic Transmission Line ...................................................102
4.11.3.1 Geophysical Survey ........................................................................................103
4.11.3.2 Geotechnical Investigation ..............................................................................104
4.11.3.3 Sediment Transport Model ..............................................................................105
4.11.3.4 Hydrography .................................................................................................105
4.11.3.5 Lakebed Sediments .......................................................................................106
4.11.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Subaquatic Transmission Line .......................107
4.12 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................108
4.12.1 NYSDEC Stream Classification System......................................................................108
4.12.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................108
4.12.2.1 Streams, Rivers, and Creeks...........................................................................108
4.12.2.2 Sole Source Aquifers and Public Drinking Water Supply Aquifers ........................109
4.12.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................109

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


SECTION

PAGE

4.12.3.1 Streams Rivers and Creeks.............................................................................109


4.12.3.2 Sole Source Aquifers and Public Drinking Water Supply Aquifers ........................111
4.13 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................111
4.13.1 New York State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands .......................................................111
4.13.1.1 Existing Conditions - Substation Site (Galloo Island) .........................................112
4.13.1.2 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Galloo Island) .......................................112
4.13.1.3 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Mainland) .............................................112
4.13.1.4 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Mexico, New York)..................................113
4.13.2 Federally Regulated Section 404 Wetlands ...............................................................113
4.13.2.1 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Galloo Island).........................................113
4.13.2.2 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Galloo Island) .......................................114
4.13.2.3 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Mainland) .............................................114
4.13.2.4 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Mexico, New York)..................................114
4.13.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................115
4.13.3.1 Overhead Construction ..................................................................................115
4.13.3.2 Overhead Transmission Line Vegetation Clearing..............................................116
4.13.3.3 Underground Construction .............................................................................116
4.13.3.4 Underground Transmission Line Vegetation Clearing.........................................116
4.13.3.5 Substation Sites ............................................................................................116
4.13.3.6 Mitigation for Construction in and Adjacent to Wetlands....................................116
4.13.3.7 Site Clean-up and Restoration ........................................................................117
4.14 Floodplains.....................................................................................................................118
4.14.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................118
4.14.2 Environmental Effects.............................................................................................119
4.14.3 Mitigation ..............................................................................................................120
4.15 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................120
4.15.1 Existing Conditions Proposed Route ......................................................................121
4.15.1.1 Contaminated Sites........................................................................................121
4.15.1.2 Hazardous Material Releases ..........................................................................122
4.15.1.3 Hazardous Materials Management...................................................................122
4.15.2 Environmental Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................123
4.15.2.1 Contaminated Sites........................................................................................123
4.15.2.2 Hazardous Materials Releases.........................................................................124
4.15.2.3 Hazardous Materials Management...................................................................124
4.16 Noise.............................................................................................................................124
4.16.1 Applicable Noise Standards .....................................................................................125
4.16.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................125
4.16.3 Projected Conditions...............................................................................................125
4.16.3.1 Construction .................................................................................................125
4.16.3.2 Operation .....................................................................................................126
4.16.4 Environmental Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................126
4.17 Electric and Magnetic Fields .............................................................................................127
4.17.1 Available State, National, and International Guidelines for EMF ..................................127
4.17.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation..........................................128
4.17.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................128
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................129

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

4.1.1-1
4.2.2-1
4.2.2-2
4.2.2-3
4.7.1-1
4.7.1-2
4.7.1-3
4.7.1-4
4.7.4-1
4.7.4-2
4.7.4-3
4.7.4-4
4.10.2-1
4.10.2-2
4.10.2-3
4.10.2-4
4.10.2-5
4.10.2-6
4.10.2-7
4.11-1
4.11-2
4.11-3
4.11-4
4.11-5
4.11-6
4.11-7

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

4.12.2-1
4.12.2-2
4.12.2-3
4.13.1-1
4.13.1-2
4.13.2-1

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

4.13.2-2
4.14-1
4.14-2
4.15-1
4.15-2
4.16-1
4.16.4-1

Table 4.17.1-1
Table 4.17.1-2

Amount of Proposed Route in Existing ROWs Corridor


Counties Crossed by the Route
Towns Crossed in Jefferson County
Towns Crossed in Oswego County
Land Use in ROW
Land Use in Study Area
Agricultural Land Use in ROW
Agricultural Land Use in Study Area
Land Use at Roads Crossed by the Proposed Centerline
Roads Crossed By the Proposed Route (Study Area)
Roads Crossed by the Proposed Route Centerline
Navigable Waterways Crossed by the Proposed Route
Land Cover
Avian Species
Reptiles and Amphibians
Odonates
Fish Species
Mussels
Rare Species
Slope Compilation Totals For Proposed Route
Bedrock Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Surficial Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Summary of Surficial Geology Material
Active Mines within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Gas and Oil Wells within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Characteristics of Soil Types within 2,400 feet (1,200 feet on each side) of the Proposed
Route
Streams Crossed by the Proposed Route ROW
Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Rivers and Streams within 2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation
NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands
NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands within 2,400 feet of Proposed Substations
Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the
Proposed Route ROW
Federal Wetlands within 2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation
Flood Zones within 2,400 Feet Study Area and Proposed Route ROW
Summary of Flood Zones in Proposed ROW
Hazardous Materials within 2,400 foot Study Area
Hazardous Materials Typically Used for Transmission Line Construction
Typical Noise Levels of Transportation and Construction Equipment in dBA
Predicted Sound Levels from Operation of the Substation at the Property Lines and at
Nearby Residences (R)
60-Herz EMF Guidelines Established by Health & Safety Organizations
State EMF Standards and Guidelines for Transmission Lines

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

4.4-1
4.4-2
4.4-3
4.4-4
4.4-5
4.4-6
4.4-7
4.4-8
4.4-9
4.4-10
4.4-11
4.4-12
4.4-13
4.4-14
4.4-15
4.5-1
4.11-1
4.11-2
4.11-3

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Interstate 85 Double Circuit


230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Railroad Double Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Distribution Line Double Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Gas Line Double Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line Typical ROW Double Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Interstate 85 Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Railroad Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Distribution Line Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Gas Line Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line Typical ROW Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Underground Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Riser Structure Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Substation Looking North Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Substation Looking West Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line ROW Tangent Structure Single Circuit
230 kV Transmission Line Access Road Typical Dimensions
New York Surficial Geologic Map
New York Bedrock Geologic Map
Depth to Bedrock Below Soil Surface (Inches)

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT


4.1 Introduction
Upstate NY Power Corp (Upstate) proposes to construct and operate a single circuit 230 kV electric
transmission line approximately 50.6 miles in length between a wind-powered electric generation
facility on Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, New York located on the eastern end of Lake
Ontario, to a substation in the Town of Mexico, New York where the line will connect to the regional
power grid (Project; Proposed Route). Approximately 41.6 miles of the Proposed Route is upland and
approximately 9 miles are subaquatic. The upland segments are further divided into overhead
(approximately 39 miles) and underground (approximately 0.34 miles) segments. The Proposed
Route is depicted in Figure 2.1-1 and is described below.
In total the Project would span approximately 50.6 miles, and cover a geographical area between
Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, and the Town of Mexico in Oswego
County. The transmission line and associated facilities have been planned, sited, and conceptually
designed and will be constructed and operated in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to
environmental resources within the Project area.
As an important part of the process of evaluating route options, Upstate has sought input from
numerous federal and New York state agencies, including: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the New York State Department of Public Service,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York State
Department of State (NYSDOS), Department of Transportation and Office of General Services. It has
also sought input from both affected counties (Jefferson and Oswego) and the six municipalities
which are affected, along with input from the public. As part of this process, Upstate has developed
a comprehensive Public Participation Plan (Appendix T with the objective of disseminating information
on the proposed transmission line, and encouraging public input. In additional to meetings with state
and federal agencies, Upstate has convened or participated in numerous formal meetings to discuss
the proposed Project and solicit public input, as more fully described in Appendix T.
Upstate, while proposing to construct a single circuit overhead line, is proposing to construct certain
components of the Project to enable the installation of a second circuit in the future. This would
require installing taller poles and potentially larger foundations to accommodate the additional
insulators and conductors required for a second circuit. The typical additional pole height for a
tangent structure may be approximately 10 feet as described in Figures E-1.1 through E-1.8. The
addition of a second circuit would require an Article VII application, but would only involve the
addition of the conductors and associated hardware plus modifications within the Mexico interconnect
substation. This would avoid the need to build a second set of structures on the Proposed Route
ROW or possibly a completely new transmission line on a new ROW and the attendant environmental
impacts associated with the construction as well as potentially higher costs. This could help facilitate
the introduction of new or already proposed wind generation projects to the north of Henderson.
NYISO, in a preliminary study has discussed possible difficulties interconnecting new wind resources
in Zones D and E due to constraints and or congestion, particularly for the Thousand Island and
Plattsburg areas. Insufficient transmission may also lead to dispatch constraints.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Limited field investigations, existing databases, literature reviews, and agency consultations were
conducted to identify and assess existing environmental conditions within the Proposed Route and
Project area. This document summarizes the results of environmental impact assessments under the
following categories:

Land Use and Transportation

Visual Resources

Cultural Resources

Natural Resources, including Vegetation Land Cover, Fish, Benthos and Wildlife, and Threatened
and Endangered Species

Upland Physical Resources, including Geology, Topography, and Soils

Sub-aquatic Physical and Chemical Resources of Lake Ontario

Hydrology

Wetlands and Coastal Resources

Floodplains

Hazardous Materials

Noise

Electric and Magnetic Fields

The results of these existing conditions investigations are presented below by resource type. Also
presented are assessments of the potential impacts to each resource type that may result from
construction and/or operation of the Project. Where impacts have been determined to be
unavoidable, appropriate mitigation has been proposed. As detailed in Table 4.1.1-1, the Proposed
Route parallels an existing active railroad for approximately 5.8 miles, an existing gas line for 3.9
miles and will occupy a currently abandoned railway and abandoned low voltage electric line for 9.9
miles. In total, approximately 39% of the Proposed Route has been sited to occur adjacent to
existing ROW corridors. When considering only mainland portions of the Proposed Route,
approximately 50% of the Proposed Route occurs adjacent to existing ROW corridors. Also,
approximately 2.6 miles of the route parallels the Interstate Route 81 corridor and considering this
segment, approximately 57% of the Proposed Route on the mainland is within or adjacent to existing
energy or transportation corridors.
The remaining portions of the Proposed Route occur either on Gallo Island (approximately 2.6 miles
or 5%), underwater (approximately 9.0 miles or 18%) or in greenfield areas (approximately 19 miles
or 38%). Within greenfield regions, the majority of the Proposed Route occurs predominantly in

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 2

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

agricultural areas. Upstate has consulted with the Department of Ag and Market to site the facilities
to maintain productive use of the active fields.
4.2 Project Description
The Proposed Route originates at the Galloo Island collector substation and runs approximately 2.6
miles aboveground to a transition station located 0.19 miles from the northeastern edge of the island
shoreline (Figure 2.1-1). This section of the shoreline is privately-owned and is primarily open space.
At the shoreline transition station, the Proposed Route becomes an underground configuration in
order to transition to a subaquatic configuration.
The Proposed Route extends approximately 9 miles across Lake Ontario from the eastern shore of
Galloo Island to the landfall in Henderson, New York. Water depths along the Proposed Route range
from shallow waters along the shoreline (2 feet minimum at low water reported in the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 1999) as much as 96 feet. The Proposed Route
extends in an easterly direction away from Galloo Island and upon entering deep waters (>35 feet
deep) turns east-northeast into the Stony Basin of Lake Ontario. The route parallels an existing
subaquatic cable (NOAA Chart 14802) that runs between Galloo Island and Sackets Harbor for
approximately 2.5 miles and then turns northeast to avoid shallow water off of Stony Island. The
route turns southeast in the vicinity of the Stony Island buoy (Red Buoy No. 2) and crosses the
existing cable approximately 5.6 miles from the start of the subaquatic route on Galloo Island. It
then enters the Black River Channel and extends southeast approximately 3.4 miles to the landfall in
Henderson, New York on a parcel owned by Lake Ontario Cement near Hovey Tract Road.
From the point of landfall in Henderson, New York, the Proposed Route runs underground
approximately 0.15 miles to a transition station. At this structure, the conductor transitions to an
overhead single circuit 230 kV electric line and runs approximately 38.7 miles to another transition
station located 0.19 miles north of the Mexico interconnect substation. At this structure, the
overhead line will transition underground in order to cross under existing 345 kV transmission lines.
The underground line segment will connect to a riser structure inside the Mexico interconnect
substation. At the Mexico interconnect substation, voltage will be stepped up from 230 kV to 345 kV
for connection to the regional power grid via a New York Power Authority (NYPA) transmission line.
The general location for the Project is shown on the locus map (Figure 2.1-1).
It is the Projects intent to acquire a 150-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) for the construction and
operation of the transmission line. Where the Proposed Route is along an existing abandoned
overhead 34.5 kV line it will occupy an existing 50 foot wide ROW 1. This ROW would need to be
expanded by 100 feet. Property rights for the ROW will be acquired via easements negotiated with
the involved owners. Existing land uses that will not interfere with the safe and reliable operation of
the transmission line will continue on and adjacent to the ROW following completion of construction.
For public safety and facility security reasons, the equipment at the transition stations and the two

1
Discussions with NGRID the abandoned line owner has indicated their willingness to transfer any property rights they have to
Upstate.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 3

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

substations will be installed within an enclosed fenced area with restricted access. Land use patterns
in the general project area should not be altered by the transmission project itself.
It is possible that the 150-foot wide ROW may have some overlap with the paralleled ROWs or
railroad property. The final determination of the width of overlap will be subject to future
coordination with the existing facility owners and involved property owners. The northern substation
is on an uninhabited island; and the southern substation will be near existing 765 kV and 345 kV
transmission facilities to minimize impacts on land use patterns.
For the subaquatic portion of the route, it is the Projects intent to acquire a 400-foot wide installation
corridor through a permit or easement from the New York Office of General Services. The cable will
be installed via a combination of jet plow embedment, surface installation with concrete blankets and
horizontal direction drilling. Existing subaquatic land and water uses, which will not interfere with
the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line, can continue following completion of
construction.
The proposed transmission line is critical to bring the power generated by the Hounsfield Wind Farm
proposed for Galloo Island to the existing New York State electric transmission grind through an
interconnection with the existing Edic Fitzpatrick NYPA 345 kV line in the Town of Mexico. This
would have a positive economic effect on the region by supplying a source of renewable energy that
is not subject to the price volatility associated with energy generated by utilization of fossil fuels as
described further in Exhibit 6.
4.2.1 Proposed Route Structure Representation
A reasonable representation of the proposed transmission line regarding the potential structure
locations and heights was developed for the visual resource assessment. The structure locations
and heights were developed using electric utility engineering and environmental experience and
judgment in conjunction with span length and height information from structure drawings in
Exhibit E-1, the location of mapped geographic features such as topography, wetlands, roads,
streams, buildings, etc. It was recognized that structure type, location and height will vary along
the line and that exact details are not known at this time and will be determined in the detailed
design phase.
It is important to note that the structure locations and heights are not a design, as no survey
information or field verified information was used in the development. When a design is
developed for the transmission line, and presented in the Environmental Management and
Construction Plan (EM&CP), it is expected that the structure locations (and heights) will vary but
that over a reasonable distance, the number of structures and range of heights will approximate
the representation.
4.2.2 Description of Proposed Route
From north to south, the counties crossed and distances involved are presented in Table 4.2.2-1.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 4

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

JEFFERSON COUNTY: As shown in Table 4.2.2-2, the Proposed Route crosses three towns, in
Jefferson County.
Town of Hounsfield: The Proposed Route originates at the Galloo Island collector substation on
Galloo Island in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario in Hounsfield, New York where the electric
power from the Hounsfield Wind Project will be stepped up from 34.5 kV to 230 kV. An overhead
230 kV transmission line approximately 2.6 miles in length will run in a northeast direction to a
transition station located 0.19 miles from the island shoreline where the line will change to an
underground configuration. The landfall is located on the southeastern shoreline of Galloo Island
approximately 150 feet from Galloo Island Road, which, though a narrow dirt road, is the main
existing roadway throughout the island.
The Proposed Route extends in an easterly direction away from Galloo Island and upon entering
deep waters turns east-northeast into the Stony Basin of Lake Ontario. The route parallels an
existing subaquatic cable (NOAA Chart 14802) that runs between Galloo Island and Sackets
Harbor for approximately 2.5 miles and then turns northeast off of Stony Island. The route turns
southeast in the vicinity of the Stony Island buoy (Red Buoy No. 2) and crosses the existing cable
approximately 5.6 miles from the start of the subaquatic route on Galloo Island. The route then
enters the Black River Channel and extends southeast approximately 2.0 miles to the Henderson
town line.
Town of Henderson: From the town line the proposed subaquatic route continues
approximately 1.4 miles to the landfall in Henderson, New York to a parcel owned by Lake
Ontario Cement near Hovey Tract Road. From the point of landfall the Proposed Route runs
underground approximately 0.15 miles to a transition station. At this structure, the line
transitions to an overhead single circuit 230 kV electric line and runs due south for 0.13 miles
before crossing North Schoolhouse Road and Military Road. Then the route turns southeast for
0.79 miles to cross County Route 178 twice (once south of Cedar Grove and the other at
Lighthouse Road and County Route 178). The route continues through greenfield areas and
crosses County Road 152, turns east and begins to traverse agricultural areas and crosses State
Highway 3 at about mile 4.5. The route then begins to travel southeast 0.77 miles across Town
Barn Road, turns south for half a mile and then east for approximately one mile to stay on the
edge of agricultural fields and crosses County Road 78 turning south across County Road 152 and
enters into Ellisburg at about mile 7.80.
Town of Ellisburg: The route continues in agricultural areas as it enters Ellisburg from the
north between Mixer Road and County Road 78 for approximately 1.2 miles to cross County Road
79. The route continues southward for 1.7 miles crossing County Road 75 and Allard Road.
About 0.3 miles southeast from the Allard Road crossing, the route crosses Johnson Road and
runs east adjacent to the abandoned Woodville Railroad property for about 2.5 miles. The route
then travels east then south for 9.2 miles parallel to Interstate 81 (crossing Scott Rd., State
Highway 193, Torrey Hill, County Road 180, and Cobblestone Corner) before reaching Sandy
Creek in Oswego County.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 5

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

OSWEGO COUNTY: The Proposed Route crosses three towns in Oswego County, as shown in
Table 4.2.2-3.
Town of Sandy Creek: As the route enters the town of Sandy Creek, it continues south along
the abandoned Woodville Railroad for 0.5 miles (crossing Castor Road) before departing slightly
to the west into greenfield areas for 1.7 miles crossing County Road 22A, Kehoe Road, Blind
Creek, and Hadley Road. The route continues south for 0.5 miles and crosses Little Sandy Creek
and Lake Road. At the Lake Road crossing, the route parallels the existing National Grid gas
pipeline for 3.4 miles, crossing Frazer Road, Upton Road, and Deer Creek before entering the
town of Richland between North Street and US Route 11.
Town of Richland: The route enters Richland from the north at about mile 26.7, west of US
Route 11, and follows the gas pipeline for 0.21 miles. Just north of the Maltby Road crossing,
the route begins to follow the abandoned railroad/active 34.5 kV transmission line right of way
for 0.90 miles. At which point, the route makes a sharp turn to the east over Jefferson Road and
through greenfield areas towards Interstate 81 north of Richland Road. The route crosses
Interstate 81 at a perpendicular angle at about mile 28.48 and follows a new right of way
parallel, just to the east of the highway for 1.3 miles. North of State Route 13, the route crosses
west over Interstate 81 and travels southwest for 0.9 miles. At about mile 31.3, as the route
approaches Halsey Street, it makes a sharp turn to the west for 0.8 miles of new right of way to
join the active CSX Railroad right of way. It parallels the railroad for the next 4.7 miles, crossing
County Route 28, County Route 41A, and Dry Bridge Road before entering the Town of Mexico.
Town of Mexico: The route passes through the town of Mexico for 3.3 miles. It enters from
the northeast between Valley Street and State Highway 11 at about mile 27.4. At the town line,
the route diverges from the railroad for 0.54 miles to avoid wetlands. The route begins to
parallel the active CSX railroad right of way again just south of the Tubbs Road crossing and
continues to parallel for 0.73 miles to the State Route 104 crossing. South of the Route 104
crossing, the route travels through greenfield areas for 1.64 miles, to the LaCasse Street
crossing. The route terminates 0.44 miles south of LaCasse Street at the Mexico interconnection
substation which connects to the NYPA 345 kV transmission line.
4.2.3 Vegetation Clearing
Along the overhead sections of the proposed transmission line Project, a 150-foot clearing width
will be needed. Vegetation will be cleared for construction and maintained by herbicides, but
vegetation more than 50 feet from each structure and maturing less than 50 feet in height will be
allowed to regenerate.
Trees that may potentially damage the transmission line but are located outside of the proposed
ROW are danger trees and would be removed following acquisition of rights from the property
owner.
Transition stations and the underground portions of the route will also require vegetation
clearing. Clearing will include an approximate 100-foot by 100-foot area for the transition

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 6

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

station, plus a maximum of 25 feet of additional temporary clearing for construction beyond the
transition stations fence line.
Clearing for underground construction will require a 150-foot wide clearing (75 feet to either side
of the trench), and grubbing the width of the trench, plus an approximate 20-foot area on each
side of the trench.
Areas within the fence lines of the proposed substations plus a working area of approximately 25
feet around the fence line will be required. Equipment lay down areas; access roads,
construction trailer areas, parking areas, etc. will all be cleared and grubbed. The limits of
clearing will be identified in the EM&CP (Appendix D). Areas that will be allowed to re-vegetate
following construction will also be identified.
4.2.4 Proposed Project Facilities
New facilities required for the Project include two substation facilities and three transition
stations. The substation facilities flank the Proposed Route and include a collector substation on
Galloo Island and a 230 kV: 345 kV 300 megavolt ampere (MVA) interconnect substation in
Mexico, New York which ties into the regional power grid. The transmission line utilizes three
transition stations; one Galloo Island, approximately 0.19 miles from the shoreline, where the
overhead 230 kV transmission line is converted underground, one approximately 0.15 miles from
the shoreline in Henderson, New York where the underground cable is converted to an overhead
line, and one located approximately 0.19 miles north of the Mexico interconnect substation where
the overhead line is converted underground in order to avoid crossing over existing 765 kV single
and 345 kV double circuit overhead transmission lines. Riser structures are utilized to transition
upland portions of the transmission line from overhead to underground or vice versa.
4.2.4.1 Substations
The Galloo Island and Mexico substations will occupy a footprint of approximately 1 acre and
4.7 acres, respectively. The Gallo Island collector substation design is described in Exhibit E2 and will include:

One or two transformer banks top rated at 300 MVA

Up to three single phase 60/80/100 MVA units and a spare unit

A 230 kV riser structure connects the substation to a 230 kV overhead cable

A 5000 A, 35 kV, 6-inch aluminum tie bus that will connect four 34.5 kV, 1200 A feeder
breakers to the transformer bank

Six single phase three-winding converter transformers

The Mexico interconnect substation design is described in Exhibit E-2 and will include:

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 7

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

A 345 kV breaker and a half scheme allowing for a maximum of six exits in two breaker
rows

Three breakers, two line exits and a transformer exit

Three galvanized steel line H frame pull off towers, each nominally 80 feet tall

A central control house (20 feet by 40 feet approximately)

A 180/240/300 MVA, 230 kV: 345 kV autotransformer with tertiary brought out

A 230 kV riser structure with surge arresters connected to a tie bus and a 230 kV, 2000 A
breaker which in turn connects to the transformer

At the end of the tie bus will be a 2000 A disconnect switch will allow for the addition of
a second 230 kV line entrance and transformer bank without an outage

4.2.4.2 Transition Structures & Underground Construction


The Proposed Route utilizes three transition structures and three underground segments.
The transition station on Galloo Island is located approximately 0.19 miles from the eastern
shoreline where the overhead 230 kV transmission line is converted underground. This
underground segment runs 0.19 miles before transitioning to a subaquatic route at the
Galloo Island shoreline. At the Henderson, New York shoreline, the subaquatic cable
transitions underground and runs approximately 0.15 miles to another transition station
where it is converted to an overhead line.
The third transition station is located
approximately 0.19 miles north of the Mexico interconnect substation where the overhead
lines transition underground in order to cross existing 765 kV single and 345 kV double-circuit
overhead transmission lines. An overhead crossing that would pass beneath the existing
overhead lines may also be considered depending on final design that would need to
consider separation distances required by the National Electric Safety Code and discussion
with owners of the existing transmission facilities.
Underground to Overhead Transition Stations
The Galloo Island and Henderson, New York transition stations are low profile 230 kV steel
riser structures with surge arrestors, current transformers; outdoor CT/relay/battery cabinets,
and a 55-foot pull off H frame structure. From the 55-foot pull off H frame structure
within the limits of the station, the conductors and related shield wires transition to a deadend double circuit transmission line structure. A discussion of the proposed underground
construction together with a depiction of the transition stations is presented in Exhibit E-1.
The transition station located 0.19 miles north of the Mexico interconnect substation consists
of a self supporting full dead-end riser structure (Str. No. 1), with jumper insulator
assemblies, surge arresters, cable terminations and terminator supports. The structure will
accommodate one circuit only and as such, only one structure will be installed at the Mexico

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 8

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

interconnect substation end (north of the existing 765 kV and 345 kV transmission lines). The
underground line segment between Str. No. 1 and the Mexico interconnect substation will
consist of a 230 kV underground circuit and connect to a riser structure inside the substation.
Inside the Mexico substation, the low profile riser structure will be equipped with surge
arrestors to accommodate the transition of the underground conductor from the duct bank to
the overhead portion of the substation. A discussion of the proposed underground
construction together with a depiction of the transition stations is presented in Exhibit E-1.
4.3 Summary of Findings
The transmission line and associated facilities have been planned, sited, and conceptually designed
and will be constructed and operated in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to environmental
resources within the Project area.
The Proposed Route will maximize the utilization of previously developed railroad properties and
energy ROWs and facilities. Particular emphasis was placed on configuring the Project adjacent to
existing railroad properties and energy corridors and on one section utilizing an existing ROW, while
minimizing impacts to existing land uses and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In total,
approximately 39% of the Proposed Route has been sited to occur adjacent to existing ROW
corridors. When considering only mainland portions of the Proposed Route, approximately 50% of
the Proposed Route occurs adjacent to existing ROW corridors. Also, approximately 2.6 miles of the
route parallels the Interstate Route 81 corridor and considering this segment, approximately 57% of
the Proposed Route on the mainland is within or adjacent to existing energy or transportation
corridors.
Based on the assessments presented in Exhibit 4, the installation of the proposed facilities at the
locations and with the general construction techniques set forth in this application will result in
minimal environmental impacts and represents a reasonable balance of environmental impact, energy
system needs considerations, and cost.
ROW Clearing - The upland portion of the Proposed Route involves the construction of a new
transmission line on new rights-of-way. Initially, only one circuit on structure with a double-circuit
capacity will be installed and vegetation clearing will be kept to a minimum whenever possible. The
location of the proposed initial circuit will be kept adjacent to existing facilities (i.e., railroads,
highways, pipelines, etc.) as much as possible in order to minimize initial clearing of the rights-ofway. The Project also minimizes the amount of clearing necessary due to the practice of selective
clearing based on vegetation mature height and conductor clearance needs.
The Proposed Route will include a 150-foot wide Right of Way (ROW) along both overhead and
underground portions. Within the upland ROW, vegetation will be selectively cleared for construction
and maintenance purposes. In general, vegetation located within a 45 degree envelope, occurring no
closer than the prescribed 50 feet from each target point, and maturing less than 50 feet in height
will be allowed to regenerate.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 9

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Herbicides will be used on the Proposed Route ROW except in areas designated for no herbicide use
such as where there are sensitive resources including wetlands, streams and other water bodies,
threatened and endangered species habitat, and public water supplies. This plan will be finalized
once the route is certified and the line is in service, and will specify the ongoing vegetation
maintenance requirements.
A significant area of the substation sites will be cleared of all vegetation for construction. In general,
the areas within the fence lines in addition to a working area around the fence line, equipment lay
down areas, access roads, construction trailer areas, parking areas, etc. will all be cleared and
grubbed. The limits of clearing will be identified in the EM&CP. Areas that will be allowed to revegetate following construction will also be identified. The EM&CP will be submitted for public review
and Public Service Commission approval prior to advancing to Project construction.
Access Roads - Siting and construction of access roads will be undertaken in such a manner as to
minimize environmental impacts to existing vegetation, water, and soil resources.
Basic
considerations relative to the timing and location of the access roads will include avoidance of
environmentally sensitive features (i.e., wetlands and agricultural sites), facilitation of future
maintenance work, minimization of erosion problems, and maximum utilization of existing roadways
and existing cleared areas. Where site conditions such as steep slopes, sensitive streams and
wetlands, or agricultural operations dictate, off rights-of-way access will be considered to avoid such
sensitive sites. Access roads will generally be approximately 16 feet in width and where not required
for maintenance will be deactivated once construction is completed.
Construction - Construction activities will be coordinated in such a way as to allow all contractors
and consultants to expedite the work functions and assure that appropriate environmental and safety
standards are met at all times. Field activities will include: vegetation clearing; construction of access
roads; installation of structure foundations; structure assembly; conductor pulling; installation of
grounding systems; construction of laydown yards, and installation of temporary equipment staging
areas. Advance planning during this phase will assure that: tree cutting and brush disposal are
properly conducted; equipment operation and construction activities are limited to designated areas;
the appropriate erosion control measures are applied; and tree marking and selective clearing and
trimming precedes structure placement.
Project construction impacts to the areas within and adjacent to the Proposed Route ROW will be
temporary, highly localized, and associated with the installation of the Project facilities. Potential
impacts to potentially sensitive areas (including but not limited to, streams, wetlands, areas of hydric
soils, farmlands, etc.) will be minimized by the typical 400-foot to 600-foot interval between overhead
structures; which allows flexibility in the placement of the individual structures. Detailed mitigation
measures for specific, cultural, natural and physical resources are described in the EM&CP and
appropriate sections of the Article VII Application.
Construction of the subaquatic cable will be conducted utilizing jet plow embedment in the bottom of
Lake Ontario which will minimize sediment suspension. Subaquatic-upland transitions will occur via
open trench or horizontal directional drilling installation of an underground cable that will originate or

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 10

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

terminate at riser structures transitioning the transmission line to the overhead configuration. Project
construction impacts to the areas within and adjacent to the subaquatic portion of the Proposed
Route ROW will be temporary and localized.
Land Use - The Galloo Island collector substation will occupy approximately 1 acre of residential
land within the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County. In addition, the Proposed Route centerline
crosses approximately 2.62 miles of residential land in the Town of Hounsfield. Land use on Galloo
Island within the 2,400-foot wide study area is residential 99.5% (640.33 acres), with the remaining
0.5% (3.13 acres) designated as community service.
The subaquatic section of the Proposed Route crosses Lake Ontario for approximately 9 miles from
Galloo Island, across Stony Basin and Black River Channel, and where its landfall at Stony Point in the
Town of Henderson. Stony Basin and Black River Channel are both navigable sections of Lake
Ontario; however, these areas do not contain designated federal shipping lanes. Once the Proposed
Route makes landfall in the Town of Henderson, it crosses navigable waterways at approximately
nine locations along various sections of Sandy Creek, South Sandy Creek, the Salmon River, and their
associated tributaries.
Installation of the subaquatic cable will result in limited, short-duration impacts to navigation in Lake
Ontario. Impacts to navigation and establishment of the safety zones around the work area will be
addressed in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
to ensure that potential conflicts with boat traffic are minimized. However, once the cable is in
regular operation, there are no anticipated navigational impacts.
Once it makes landfall in the Town of Henderson, the Proposed Route crosses all of the navigable
waterways in an overhead configuration so as not to impact navigation. Impacts to these
waterbodies will be minimized by selective placement of structures outside of waterbodies, their
banks, and any adjacent sensitive areas.
Approximately 20.6 miles of the 150-foot wide ROW is proposed for location in the Towns of
Henderson and Ellisburg, Jefferson County. Land use within the ROW primarily consists of
agricultural land, followed by vacant and residential land. Among the land that has been classified as
agricultural, over half of the acreage is used for dairy farming, while the remainder is used for field
crops or is designated as agricultural vacant (productive) land (Table 4.7.1-3).
Additionally in
Jefferson County, the Proposed Route centerline crosses designated agriculture districts for
approximately 10.67 miles, which represents 22% of the onshore Proposed Route.
Approximately 19.3 miles of the 150-foot wide ROW is proposed for location in the Towns of Sandy
Creek, Richland, and Mexico, Oswego County. Land use within the ROW primarily consists of vacant
land, followed by residential and agricultural land. Among the land that has been classified as
agricultural, over half of the acreage is designated as agricultural vacant (productive), while the
remainder is used for dairy products or is land used to raise cattle, calves, and hogs. Additionally in
Oswego County, the Proposed Route centerline crosses designated agriculture districts for
approximately 5.48 miles, which represents 11.3% of the onshore Proposed Route. The Mexico
interconnect substation will occupy approximately 4.7 acres.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 11

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Land use patterns will not change with the addition of the proposed transmission line. The potential
for impact to designated land uses is greatest in those areas designated as either agricultural or wild,
forested, conservation lands and public parks. Permanent impacts to these lands will be minimized
by selective placement of structures. Traffic patterns will not permanently change with the addition
of the proposed transmission line; however, patterns may be temporarily impacted during route
construction and during maintenance activities. Upstate will coordinate with the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and local transportation and highway departments to
develop appropriate plans for route construction and maintenance that consider traffic and public
safety.
There are approximately 48 locations where the Proposed Route crosses existing roadways. A total of
36 local roads, five state roads, and two federal roads are crossed at least once along the Proposed
Route. Land use at these areas primarily consists of agricultural land, followed by vacant and
residential land. The land use in these areas that has been classified as agricultural is used primarily
for dairy farming.
An analysis of land uses along the Proposed Route concludes that there are no airports located within
1 mile of the Proposed Route ROW.
The Proposed Route crosses an active railroad (CSX Railroad), at one location in the Town of
Richland and at one location in the Town of Mexico.
Coordination of construction activities with CSX will assure minimal interference at the locations in the
Towns of Richland and Mexico where the Proposed Route will cross the railroad. Any unanticipated
problems will be addressed with the active cooperation of CSX.
Visual Resources - A Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) that followed the NYSDECs Program Policy
entitled Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC 2000) (the NYSDEC Visual Policy) and
State Environmental Quality Review criteria, to assess visual impacts on resources considered
sensitive for visual impacts (visual or aesthetic resources) was conducted for the Project. The
methodology was also based on other generally accepted standards and procedures by various
government agencies. VRA found no adverse visual impacts due to construction or operation of the
Project on visually sensitive resources.
The visual study area included areas within a 3-mile radius on either side of the centerline of the
proposed route (hereafter referred to as the 3-mile radius study area or visual study area), as
potential visual impacts of the relatively slender profiles of the aboveground transmission structures
will significantly lessen beyond 3-miles. However, site-specific consideration was given to resources
of high cultural or scenic importance that were located beyond this study area.
The mainland transmission line is the longest section of the Project and visible components include a
substation, two transition stations, and 384 monopole structures (tangent and angle transmission
towers) across its 39-mile long route. Pole heights will generally range between 90 and 105 feet in
most locations. The Galloo Island transmission line will run approximately 2.6 miles aboveground

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 12

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

and consist of 45 approximately 80-foot-high monopoles. The subaquatic cable will not be visible to
either boaters and or viewers from land.
The construction period is expected to be relatively short and as such, construction related visual
impacts not expected to result in prolonged visual impacts to area residents or visitors.
Analysis of the mapped vegetated viewshed indicates that approximately 59 percent of the study
area will likely have no visibility of the proposed mainland transmission line structures due to
intervening landforms or vegetation.
Based on the viewshed analysis, one or more of the proposed transmission towers will be visible from
approximately 95 of 145 (approximately 66%) inventoried visual resources, which include Resources
of Statewide Significance, Resources of Local Interest or Open Vistas Along Roadways.
Open views of the Galloo Island transmission line will be available from offshore locations, as well as
the south and northeast sides of the Island, in the vicinity of Gil Harbor and the proposed transition
station. Views will be most available to recreation boaters and commercial vessels; there currently
are no year-round residents on Galloo Island. Most views will fleeting and short in duration, while
some may be long-term, particularly for those who may fish in the waters in close proximity to the
Island.
Twenty-one representative locations were selected for the preparation of visual simulations of the
proposed facilities. Based on the simulations and other analysis in the VRA, although the proposed
structures may be taller and more noticeable than many of the existing structures in the area, the
Project is not anticipated to significantly affect the visual or aesthetic characteristics of resources
within the study area, and will be consistent with the existing visual character in the study area.
The following mitigation measures in the NYSDEC Visual Policy have been and will continue to be
considered during the planning and design stage of the Project, Vegetative Screening, Professional
Design/Project Siting/Relocation, Camouflage/Disguise, Low Profile/Downsizing, Alternative
Technologies, Non-specular Materials, Lighting, Maintenance, and Decommissioning.
Cultural Resources - A Phase 1A survey included review of the archaeological site files of the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York State
Museum, field inspection of the Project area and a site file check. Files were examined for known
archaeological resources within the 6-mile corridor (3 miles on each side) of the area of potential
effect (APE). Cultural resources identified for the site included historic Native American sites,
archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic), standing structures, and other aboveground features.
The search of the archaeological site files identified a total of 101 archaeological sites and includes
singular features ranging from wells to entire farmsteads within the 6-mile wide search corridor along
the upland Proposed Route. A total of 58 sites were located in Jefferson County and 48 sites were
located in Oswego County. No previously recorded archeological sites were recorded on Galloo
Island.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 13

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

A search of the OPRHP inventory and of the National Register of Historic Places did not identify any
archaeological resources located adjacent to, or along the Project route. However, a total of 28
National Register Listed (NRL) structures and districts have been identified in the upland portion on
the mainland (26 within the study corridor and 2 abutting the corridor); one NRL structure has been
identified on Galloo Island (a lighthouse). Of those NRL properties in the upland portion on the
mainland, two are in Jefferson County while 26 are located in Oswego County. There are also 27
National Register Eligible (NRE) properties located within the corridor located 3 miles either side of
the Proposed Route, six in Jefferson County and 21 in Oswego County. Four of these properties are
Historic Districts and the remainder are categorized as individual structures.
Shipwrecks have occurred in the Lake Ontario in the general vicinity of the Proposed Route. However,
side-scan sonar did not reveal any significant submerged prehistoric resources along the subaquatic
Project route. In addition, the New York State Historic Preservations Office (NYSHPO) has no records
of shipwrecks within the subaquatic Project route.
Although cultural resources occur in the vicinity of the Projects upland route, all sensitive areas have
potential to be avoided through route or design adjustments. Accordingly, areas where grounddisturbing activities associated with construction or operation of the Project may occur will be
assessed using shovel and/or surface testing for the presence of significant archaeological resources,
as feasible. The presence or absence of archaeological resources within the APE will be determined
after Certification of the Route through field studies.
Natural Resources - Two federally endangered (piping plover and Indiana bat) and one threatened
species (bog turtle) potentially occur within the Proposed Route study area. In addition, one state
endangered animal species (Indiana bat) and one threatened animal species (upland sandpiper) were
listed on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Natural Heritage
Report as potentially occurring within the Proposed Route study area. A historical record of a state
endangered plant species (autumnal water-starwort) is also listed in the vicinity of the Proposed
Route study area. After final determinations for the Proposed Route and substation sites are made, a
detailed analysis of the threatened and endangered species that are within or near the Proposed
Route ROW will be conducted. This will include both field studies of habitat and location verification
of the species in question. Each potential location of occurrence will be investigated to determine the
potential for the Project to cause an impact on the species. Field studies will be coordinated with the
appropriate NYSDEC and USFWS offices to ensure all issues are addressed.
The Proposed Route ROW crosses 26 individual streams and rivers. However, several streams and
rivers are crossed at multiple locations. Therefore, there are a total of 53 stream crossings within the
Proposed Route ROW. There will be approximately 22 crossings of 5 streams that are classified as
trout and trout-spawning streams. Consistent with Project activities in areas of sensitive species
(see Section 4.10 Natural Resources), construction and maintenance activities will be conducted in
such a manner as to minimize any impacts to these high resource value areas. Mitigation techniques
such as water flow monitoring/stabilization, construction timing, and water filtration will be used as
necessary to aid in the protection of these resources. Specific mitigation plans for these areas will be
developed following identification of potentially impacted areas in the Projects detailed engineering

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 14

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

phase. Any specific mitigation needs for these areas will be included in the EM&CP (Appendix D).
Overhead crossings of streams will occur along the length of the Proposed Route. The distance
between Project structures used to support the conductors will typically range between 400 feet and
600 feet; therefore, there is flexibility in the placement of the individual structures to allow for the
minimization of potential stream crossing impacts by placing the structures at points that will
minimize water quality impacts.
Upland Physical Resources - The upland Project area is located entirely within the Ontario
Lowlands portion of the Erie-Ontario Lake Plain. The Tug Hill Plateau is located about 5 miles from
the southeastern portion of the Project area. The topography through the Proposed Route ROW is
generally nearly level to rolling. Elevations along the Proposed Route range between approximately
250 feet above mean sea level at the proposed landfall in the Town of Henderson to a maximum
elevation of approximately 510 feet above mean sea level in the Town of Ellisburg, approximately 17
miles south southeast from the proposed landfall (Figure 5-1).
Nearly all of the Proposed Route ROW will traverse relatively level areas with less than 10% slopes
(approximately 99.85% or 39.02 miles, based upon digital elevation model analysis). Approximately
0.15% (0.06 miles) will be located in areas with slopes with 10 to 20%. None of the Proposed Route
ROW will be located in areas with 21 to 40% slopes or areas with greater than 40% slopes.
A review of surficial and geological maps indicates that unconsolidated deposits mapped along the
majority of the upland portions of the Proposed Route ROW consist of lacustrine silt and clays
(45.0%), followed by lacustrine sand (25.9%), and till (16.1%). Bedrock is mapped as exposed
along approximately 4.9% of the Proposed Route ROW. Exposed bedrock is mapped within the
Proposed Route ROW primarily on Galloo Island, Stony Point, Henderson, and the northern portion of
Elllisburg. No mapped outcrops of bedrock are present within the proposed ROW in the southern
portion of the route through Sandy Creek, Richland, and Mexico.
Based on a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of maps of U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Soil Surveys for Jefferson and Oswego Counties, approximately 115 different soil types are
present within the upland Proposed Route ROW however, approximately 91 of these soils are present
in less than 1.0% (or fewer than 7.1 acres) of the Proposed Route ROW. In general rock, rock
outcrops and/or rocky soil are most common within the northern portion of the Proposed Route ROW
(Stations 1-6). Well drained loams are most common in the mid portion of the route, primarily
between Stations 7 to 19 in Henderson and Ellisburg. Soil types are more mixed between Station 19
in Ellisburg and the end of the Proposed Routed ROW at Station 41 in Mexico but are primarily
comprised of moderately well to somewhat poorly drained sandy loams. However, hydric soils and
poorly drained soils are more prevalent between Station 22 and the end of the Proposed Route ROW
than between the proposed landfall and Station 22.
The erosion hazard of soils is characterized as slight by the USDA for approximately 82% and
moderate for 10% of the soils mapped within the 2,400-foot wide study area. Hydric soils are
mapped within approximately 13% of the study area and the depth to maximum high water is less
than 6 feet below grade within 77% of the 2,400-foot wide study area. Thus, groundwater

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 15

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

dewatering may be required in excavations, particularly during wetter seasons (typically Spring) and
during periods of high rainfall and/or snowmelt. If dewatering is required during construction,
mitigation measures including settlement or filtration to reduce turbidity, discharge control, and other
measures in accordance with New York State guidelines may be required. The spacing of towers
may warrant adjustment to avoid areas of hydric soils, wherever feasible.
Shallow and or exposed bedrock typically the carbonate Trenton Group, has been observed on Galloo
Island and mapped within the 2,400-foot wide study area on Stony Point, in Henderson, and the
northern portion of Ellisburg. Accordingly, installation of some tower footings and excavation of some
of the trench portions of the Proposed Route ROW, if in bedrock may likely be accomplished using
mechanical excavators, pneumatic hammers, or controlled rock drilling. Approximately one-third of
soils within the 2,400-foot wide study area are classified as prime farmland and/or farmland of
statewide importance. In areas containing these soils and in areas under active agriculture,
construction activities and mitigation measures will fully comply with New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) agricultural protection guidelines. Examples of mitigation
measures that will be implemented include selective location of structures to minimize placement in
active agriculture fields, and implementing topsoil protection and restoration measures. Upstate will
develop appropriate construction plans for active agriculture fields, in consultation with a qualified
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Specialist/Inspector (Agriculture Specialist), as recommended in the
Pipeline Right-of-Way Construction Project guidance document (NYSDAM 1997).
A search of the NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources mines database and NYSDEC Division of
Mineral Resources wells database located a total of two active sand and gravel mines and eight oil
and gas wells, respectively within the 2,400-foot wide study area. Neither of the mines and none of
the oil and gas wells were mapped as being within the Proposed Route ROW. Site specific
reconnaissance will be performed to verify the location of these facilities after the final route is
Certified.
No National Natural Landmarks have been designated by the National Park Service within the
Proposed Route ROW, or in any of the towns where the Project is proposed for location.
No unique geologic features are identified within or near the Proposed ROW or study area based on a
review of the NYSDEC Division of Lands & Forests database. The Proposed Route ROW is located
approximately 1 mile north-northeast of the Robert G. Wehle State Park and the Henderson Shores
Unique Area, which is a reforestation area and not a unique geologic feature, at its closest approach.
Subaquatic Transmission Line Physical Resources - The subaquatic portion of the Proposed
Route is entirely within Lake Ontario and runs from Galloo Island to landfall in the Town of
Henderson. In general, lakebed elevations along the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route range
from 246 feet NAVD88 at the landfalls to 148 feet NAVD88 in the middle of the Black River Channel
near STA 380+00 (water depths 0 to 98 feet, respectively).
The majority of the lakebed within the Proposed Route is comprised primarily of clay with traces of
sand and gravel present in the upper few inches to top 1 foot. Areas of dense glacial till, and/or
exposed bedrock were identified on the lakebed near the landfalls and near the northern end of
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 16

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Stony Island. The properties of the unconsolidated deposits suggest that the majority of the lakebed
is likely amenable to cable installation via the use of a jet plow.
No shipwrecks or likely significant archeological features or other cultural resources were identified
along the subaquatic Proposed Route using side scan sonar and acoustic geophysical methods.
However, a large magnetic anomaly and side scan sonar target were detected approximately 740 feet
from the Henderson, New York and may indicate the presence of an electric submarine cable.
Bulk chemical testing indicated the concentrations of detected compounds within sediment along the
subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route are below the Class A thresholds (no appreciable
contamination) at 10 of the 17 vibracore locations. Exceedances of Class B thresholds (moderate
contamination) were identified only in surficial sediments (0 to 1 foot below the sediment/water
interface) at 7 locations. Exceedances of Class B thresholds (moderate contamination) were
identified in deeper sediment at one vibracore location VC-08-08 in a sample collected between 0 and
4.4 feet below the sediment/water interface. The Class C Threshold (high contamination) for
pesticides (Sum of DDT, DDD, DDE) and mercury was exceeded in the surficial sample (0 to 1 foot
below the sediment/water interface) in vibracore VC-08-06.
Results of sediment transport modeling suggest that potential sediment dispersion and subsequent
deposition associated with proposed cable installation via the use of a jet plow will be minimal
(sediment deposition is expected to be less than approximately 1 millimeter or less and a return preconstruction water quality is predicted within 24 hours of the completion of jet plowing). Similarly,
impacts associated with proposed dredging in the HDD exit points near the landfalls at Galloo Island
and Henderson are also expected to be minimal and of short duration (deposition of less than 1
millimeter of sediment and return to pre-construction water quality in less than 24 hours).
The use of low-impact jet plow embedment technologies for the Subaquatic Transmission Line
installation in unconsolidated sediments, combined with the short-term duration of these activities
and adherence to agreed upon in-water work windows will serve as appropriate mitigation and
avoidance of potential Project-related impacts.
Hydrology - The Proposed Route does not cross or run adjacent to any U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) designated sole source aquifers, NYSDEC designated primary aquifers, or
designated public drinking water supply aquifers. However, the Proposed Route does traverse or run
adjacent to some small aquifers that are not designated as sole source, primary, or public drinking
water supply aquifers. In these areas, subsurface construction activities will occur at a depth well
above the aquifers, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Wetlands - Based upon a review of available National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, the
Proposed Route centerline crosses a total of 1.05 miles of the USACE-regulated wetlands. Of these
1.05 miles, 0.48 miles cross USACE-regulated wetlands at 9 locations on Galloo Island and 0.57 miles
cross USACE-regulated wetlands at 18 locations in mainland portions of the Proposed Route in
Jefferson and Oswego Counties.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 17

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The Proposed Route ROW encompasses a total of 19.7 acres of USACE-regulated wetlands, as
estimated from NWI mapping. This includes 9.5 acres of wetlands on Galloo Island and 10.2 acres of
wetlands in mainland portions of the Proposed Route in Jefferson and Oswego Counties.
Based upon a review of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) maps,
approximately 0.42 miles of the Proposed Route centerline cross eight state regulated wetlands at
ten locations. This includes 0.04 miles of state regulated wetlands at one location on Galloo Island
and 0.38 miles of wetlands at nine locations in mainland portions of the Proposed Route in Jefferson
and Oswego Counties.
The Proposed Route ROW encompasses a total of approximately 8.81 acres of state regulated
wetlands. Of these 8.81 acres, approximately 1.2 acres of state regulated wetlands are crossed on
Galloo Island and 7.61 acres are crossed in mainland portions of the Proposed Route in Jefferson and
Oswego Counties.
Floodplains - Four separate flood zone classifications are located within the 2,400-foot wide study
area (1,200 feet on both sides of the Proposed Route centerline). As shown in Table 4.14.1-1, the
greater proportion (approximately 97%) of the study area for the route is located in the X zone
(minimal risk areas outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain). The route also crosses through A
and AE flood hazard zones, which are subject to 100-year flooding. Less than 0.2% of the route
crosses through X500 flood hazard zones.
Hazardous Materials - A search of relevant EPA and NYSDEC hazardous material storage,
handling, manufacture, and release databases was conducted to identify locations that may impact or
be impacted by the Project. There are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites or Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites within
the 2,400-foot wide study area. Additionally, no National Priority List sites were identified within the
2,400-foot wide study area. This review of the database did not indicate any hazardous material
release sites within the 2,400-foot wide study area.
The search identified six (6) sites which hold Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
permits Four (4) of these are hazardous waste permits, and the other two (2) are unspecified as to
the permit type. A search of these databases indicates that four (4) sites with identified hazardous
waste and two unspecified sites are present within the 2,400-foot wide study area.
Any Project activities that could potentially impact existing contaminated sites will be done in
accordance with State and Federal environmental remediation regulations. Best management
practices, as defined in part by the NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum,
will be utilized in development of the EM&CP document.
A spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan will be developed during the EM&CP phase of the
Project to address action taken in the unlikely event of a release during Project construction. This
plan will be prepared in accordance with applicable NYSDEC regulations and guidance. These include
documents such as the Spill Technology and Remediation Series, the Spill Prevention Operation
Technology Series and the Spill Guidance Manual .

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 18

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Noise - Noise produced during the construction of the substation will be typical of that produced by
heavy equipment used for heavy earthwork, foundation construction, and the installation of heavy
duty electrical equipment.
Construction-related noise will be temporary; and therefore, the effect on potential receptors is not
anticipated to be significant. To the extent practical, efforts will be made to schedule construction
activity so as to minimize the need for and duration that these activities extend beyond normal
working hours.
Predicted 24-hour equivalent sound levels (Leq(24-hour)) and day-night sound levels (Ldn) from the
operation of the Mexico substation transformer at the property boundaries would range from 53.6 to
55.0 dBA, and at the closest residences the predicted Ldn values would range from 43.9 to 46.5 dBA.
These results demonstrate compliance with the NYSDEC residential guideline of 55 dBA Ldn, since the
predicted Ldn values at the nearest residences are at least 8 dBA below the recommended limit. The
24-hour average sound levels (Leq(24-hr)) from the substation at the five nearest residences would
range from 37.5 to 40.1 dBA.
Electric and Magnetic Fields - Predicted that electric fields and magnetic fields were modeled for
the proposed project configuration. Results indicated that electric fields will not be produced by
either the subaquatic or underground Transmission Cables since the transmission cable will be
shielded by burial. Where the single circuit transmission line is in an overhead configuration electric
fields are expected to be present but at levels that conform to or are substantially below the New
York Interim Policy on electromagnetic field (EMF) standards for electric fields.
The predicted magnetic field levels at all locations along the Proposed Route ROW fall well below
guidelines established by the New York State Interim Policy on EMF standards for acceptable public
exposure to EMF.
In addition, the maximum levels of electric and magnetic fields from power line conductors occur
over a very limited extent in areas adjacent to the conductors, and EMFs decrease rapidly with
distance away from the circuits. The highly localized nature of the potential EMF exposures means
that widespread exposures to the ecosystem will not occur, and in the limited locations of EMF
impact, exposures will typically be of a very short duration as animals, insects, birds, or aquatic
species traverse the area.
4.4 Right-of-Way Clearing
The Proposed Route involves the construction of a new transmission line on new rights-of-way.
These rights-of-way will be maintained under strict guidelines established by the Owner, in
accordance with a Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). Initially, only one circuit on structures
with a double-circuit capacity will be installed and vegetation clearing will be kept to a minimum
whenever possible. The location of the proposed initial circuit will be kept adjacent to existing
facilities (i.e., railroads, highways, pipelines, etc.) as much as possible in order to minimize initial
clearing of the rights-of-way. Well-established herbaceous and shrub communities will be
kept/maintained whenever practical.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 19

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

To ensure reliable operation of the transmission line, clearing of vegetation along the Proposed Route
will be required to maintain adequate electrical clearance between the conductor and vegetation and
to facilitate the survey and construction activities. Topography and existing vegetation type and
quantities will determine the extent of the required clearing. Clearing will generally be accomplished
using mechanical equipment such as tractors with attached bush-hogs, or chain saws and bull dozers
or log skidders. Depending on area concentrations, mechanical mowing will be used to clear tall
grass, weedy vegetation, low lying scrub vegetation, and smaller trees (under 2 inches to 3 inches in
diameter).
Grubbing, where stumps are removed, will be used for underground sections,
substations, transition stations, and access roads.
Chain saws and bull dozers or log skidders will be used to clear stands of timber or trees. Smaller
limbs and brush will be chipped and will either be left as mulch on the Proposed Route, or hauled off
and disposed of in accordance with the site-specific revegetation plan. The larger trunk and branch
wood can be piled onsite or disposed of in accordance with the property owners wishes. Herbicides
will be applied as appropriate to prevent resurgent growth and maintain cleared areas as further
discussed below and shown on Figures 4.4-1 through 4.4-15. Herbicides will be used on the
Proposed Route transmission corridor except in areas designated for no herbicide use such as where
there are sensitive resources including wetlands, streams and other water bodies, threatened and
endangered species habitat, and public water supplies. Measures to control vegetation and limit new
growth are described in the Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). This plan will be finalized
once the route is certified and the line is in service, and will specify the ongoing vegetation
maintenance requirements.
Upon completion of construction activities, all areas disturbed during construction will be restored to
a condition as close to the natural state as practical.
4.4.1 Overhead Transmission Line Clearing
As shown on Figures 4.4-1 through 4.4-15, the Proposed Route will include a 150-foot wide ROW
zone where vegetation will be selectively cleared for construction and maintenance purposes. All
vegetation within the 45 degree envelope and no closer than the prescribed 50 feet from each
target point and maturing less than 50 feet in height will be allowed to regenerate. Routine ROW
clearing of trees and shrubs will be performed to provide unimpeded access to structure work
sites and to prevent any trees from becoming a hazard to the operational integrity of the line.
The use of approved herbicides will be encouraged to implement the vegetation management
plan.
Clearing of the Proposed Route may or may not be uniform. Where appropriate, existing
vegetation will be used to create buffer zones, which will be located at stream crossings and in
visually sensitive areas, such as road crossings and view points, and will consist of shrubs and
low-growing vegetation that can be easily controlled so as not to interfere with clearance
requirements. The width, extent, and location of these buffer zones will be determined once the
Proposed Route centerline, initial structure locations, and heights have been finalized.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 20

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Most cleared vegetation will be chipped or piled on site. Alternately, this vegetation may be
transported off the Proposed Route transmission corridor for disposal. Disposal of all wood
removed as a result of the clearing operations will reflect the preferences of the property owners,
and be in accordance with state and local regulations. While in certain locales there may be some
merchantable timber, overall, clearing activities are not expected to produce a significant amount
of merchantable timber.
4.4.2 Underground Cable Clearing
Transition stations and the underground portions of the route will require vegetation clearing.
Clearing will include a 150-foot right-of-way for the transition station to accommodate the riser
structure and fencing (Figure 4.4-12 through 4.4-14).
Clearing for underground construction will require a 150-foot wide clearing (75 feet on either size
of the trench), and grubbing the width of the trench, plus an approximate 20-foot area on each
side of the trench (Figure 4.4-11). This clearing will also ensure that trees and other large root
growing species will be kept away from the underground cable.
Where vegetation is cleared, sediment control measures would be installed and monitored until
the topsoil is stabilized and can support grassy vegetation. To reclaim the vegetation within one
full growing season, disturbed areas would be stabilized and re-seeded as soon as possible after
localized construction is complete. To ensure that vegetation is re-established, effective longterm erosion control measures would be implemented if required.
Removal of selected trees adjacent to the Proposed Route may be necessary to prevent trees
from falling and blocking access. To the extent necessary, permission of the affected property
owner(s) will be obtained to remove trees that would make the cable inaccessible, should they
fall.
4.4.3 Substation Clearing
An approximate area of 7.2 acres will be cleared of all vegetation for construction of the
substation in Mexico. Approximately 2.25 acres will be cleared of all vegetation for construction
of the Galloo Island substation. This includes areas within the fence lines plus a 50-foot working
area around the fence line at each substation. Additionally, equipment lay down areas, access
roads, construction trailer areas, parking areas, etc. will be cleared and grubbed. The limits of
clearing will be identified in the EM&CP. Any areas within the right-of-way that will be allowed to
re-vegetate following construction will also be identified.
4.5 Access Roads
Access roads will be constructed along the Proposed Route to move equipment, materials, and
personnel to each construction site.
In addition, to facilitate construction or to minimize
environmental impacts, access roads may also be constructed in locations off the Proposed Route to
connect nearby public roadways to the Proposed Route. Approximate locations of potential access
roads are shown on the aerial photography map panels in Appendix B.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 21

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Newly constructed access roads will be gravel and they will generally be 16 feet wide (traveled way
plus shoulders), constructed for single-lane traffic, and depending upon their length, will have
intermittent passing pull-offs (Figure 4.5-1). To provide adequate drainage and prevent rutting,
access roads will typically be constructed with a single drainage ditch on the up-slope side of the
road. The typical distance between the outside limits of the ditch and the edge of the road shoulder
will be approximately 5 feet on either side. Junctions of the access roads and public roads will be
designed to provide adequate turning radii for the longest transport vehicles, which are expected to
be trailer trucks carrying pole sections that are typically a maximum of 60 feet long.
Siting and construction of access roads will be undertaken to minimize environmental impacts to
existing vegetation, water, and soil resources. Basic considerations relative to the timing and location
of the access roads will include: avoidance of environmentally sensitive features (i.e., wetlands and
agricultural sites); facilitation of future maintenance work; minimization of erosion problems; and
maximum utilization of existing roadways and existing cleared areas. Where site conditions such as
steep slopes, sensitive streams and wetlands, or agricultural operations dictate, off rights-of-way
access will be considered to avoid such sensitive sites. Permission for rights-of-way access will be
obtained from the landowners for such access. Access roads not required for maintenance will be
deactivated once construction is completed. Design for access roads will be coordinated with
transportation weights, sizes of material and equipment, and the expected duration of use.
The type of access road construction will depend upon two factors:
1. Whether the road is to remain as a permanent access road
2. The capability of the native soil (graded and compacted) to withstand the expected vehicle wheel
loads, duration, and seasons of use
Permanent access roads will be constructed with graded gravel base and surface. These roads will
be designed for minimum maintenance.
Temporary access roads will, where possible, be constructed using native soils to minimize the need
for imported materials that may require removal when the road is deactivated. When it is necessary
to import materials to provide a stable road base, they will be kept to an absolute minimum
consistent with the duration of use and loads to be carried. Using techniques such as log corduroy
construction and portable metal roadways to minimize disturbance to wet ground area, access roads
in areas with a high water table will be constructed to minimize ground pressures.
In order to distribute the equipment load and protect load-sensitive underground facilities, such as
underground pipelines, wood matting will be installed on access roads that cross over such facilities.
The use of wood matting is a commonly accepted practice in construction for the crossing of loadsensitive underground facilities.
4.6 Construction
Construction activities will be coordinated in such a way as to allow all contractors and consultants to
expedite the work functions and assure that appropriate environmental and safety standards are met
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 22

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

at all times. The field activities requiring coordination include designation of: areas of vegetation
clearing, trimming, and disposal; construction access road installation locations; location of structure
foundations; location of structure assembly sites; location of conductor pulling sites; installation of
grounding system; and locations of proposed laydown yards. Advance planning during this phase
will assure that: tree cutting and brush disposal are properly conducted; equipment operation and
construction activities are limited to designated areas; the appropriate erosion control measures are
applied; and tree marking and selective clearing and trimming precedes structure placement. More
details regarding construction and related environmental management concerns are more thoroughly
treated in the EM&CP document associated with the application as Appendix D.
4.6.1 Structure Installation
The proposed steel monopole structures will require reinforced concrete caisson foundations. The
diameter and depth of the caisson foundations will vary according to the type of structure and
soil characteristics. Details and diagrams describing the installation of the pole structures are
included in Exhibit E-1.
Excavated material will be placed in upland areas that do not interfere with established drainage
patterns and will be stabilized by seeding. In some instances where onsite spreading of
excavated material is inappropriate, the material would be removed off-site.
4.6.2 Structure Installation in Wetland Areas
When it is necessary to place structures within the limits of a wetland, care will be taken to
protect the individual wetland during site preparation and construction. Each wetland will be
reviewed to determine the least impact method of access to the structure site. Depending upon
water and stability conditions, temporary swamp mats or temporary gravel or geotextile fabric
will be placed at each wetland structure, to provide a level, stable work area.
The method selected will be dependent upon the structure type, soil parameters, structure loads,
environmental impact, and economic factors.
The typical monopoles will be installed on reinforced concrete caisson foundations. A caisson
foundation involves the excavation of a hole, setting the reinforcing bar cage as well as the
anchor bolt cage and filling the hole with concrete. The size of the excavation will depend on the
type of structure and type of soil. The approximate diameter for a typical tangent structure would
range from 5 to 7 feet and the approximate depth would range from 16 to 22 feet. During
construction, the walls of the excavation prior to the installation of the anchor bolt and
reinforcing cages may be supported with a steel liner, which may be removed as the concrete is
poured into the hole.
4.6.3 Stringing of Conductors
After the structures have been erected and insulator assemblies have been installed, aerial shield
wires and phase conductors will be strung. This task will be accomplished by using a lead line
that can be walked through wetlands and vegetation buffer zones with minimum disruption.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 23

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Conductors will be pulled through stringing blocks by tensioning equipment and not dragged over
the ground. During the stringing operation, temporary guard structures will be placed at all
crossings of highways, railroads, stream crossings, and existing utility lines to ensure public
safety and the continued operation of other utility equipment.
4.6.4 Clean-up and Restoration
Clean-up and restoration activities will be conducted as required to stabilize all disturbed sites.
Disturbed sites will be restored using measures prescribed in the projects EM&CP (Appendix D).
Restoration work may include: re-grading; repair of stream banks; temporary and permanent
seeding and mulching for erosion control; reseeding of agricultural fields; and tree and shrub
plantings in the vegetative buffer strips. All permanent seeding and tree and shrub planting work
will be conducted during the growing season.
4.6.5 Material Storage Yards and Staging Areas
Prior to starting any construction activities, it will be necessary to establish off-site areas that will
serve as locations for construction-related facilities during the construction process. These
facilities may include the following:

Office trailers

Portable sanitary facilities

Personnel parking

Material, equipment and vehicle storage

Minor equipment and vehicle maintenance

The construction contractor will be responsible for securing property rights and constructing any
facilities required for material storage yards and staging areas. Material storage yards will
typically be located adjacent to major roads and/or railroads to allow efficient delivery of
materials. Staging areas may be located on or off the rights of way. Considering the overall
length of this transmission line project, several material storage yards and staging areas will be
required. These material storage yards and staging areas will not be located in or within 100 feet
of regulated wetland areas.
The establishment of these areas could possibly require vegetation clearing, removal and
stockpiling of topsoil, site grading, spreading of gravel cover, and fencing. Additional vegetation
clearing and grading for site access also could be required in some instances. These areas will be
utilized at various times as the construction activities precede along the routes. Once the
construction of the line has been accomplished, the areas will be restored to conditions
comparable to those that existed before construction.
The material storage yards and staging areas will be identified by the construction contractor and
submitted for review and approval prior to the start of construction.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 24

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

In some instances, installations away from the proposed rights-of-way are available for use at the
time of construction. These existing facilities (i.e., storage buildings, logging yards, quarries,
gravel pits, decommissioned industrial facilities, etc.), could be more suitable in terms of logistics
and economics than the proposed ones in the vicinity of the rights-of-way.
4.6.6 Underground Construction
The underground cable system will consist of four six inch PVC conduits per circuit. Five
additional two-inch PVC conduits will be installed: two will contain copper cables (ground
continuity conductor shield wire in the overhead design); one will contain the fiber optic cable;
and the other two will be designated as spares. They all will be encased in concrete with
controlled thermal properties. The conduits will be arranged in such a way as to meet Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. standard spacings. The single circuit duct bank
typical dimensions are 34 inches by 34 inches with a proposed minimum cover of 36 inches.
Details regarding underground construction are provided in Exhibit E-3 and Figure E-3.1 through
E-3.7.
The extent of the civil work would include: trenching, duct installation, backfilling, and restoration
of the affected surfaces, excluding the cable-pulling. Splicing Vaults are not deemed to be
necessary at this time due to the total length of the underground section of line.
4.6.7 Subaquatic Cable Construction
Construction of the subaquatic cable will be conducted by jet plow embedment in the bottom of
Lake Ontario. Subaquatic-upland transitions will occur via open trench or horizontal directional
drilling installation of an underground cable that will originate or terminate at riser structures
transitioning the transmission line to the overhead configuration. Details regarding the
installation of the subaquatic cable and associated transitions are provided within Exhibit E-3.
In summary, the installation of the subaquatic cable will occur in the following sequence: pre-lay
grapnel run, initial cable landing, jet plowing operations, final cable landing, air and water lift
operations, and demobilization. Associated activities related to the installation of the cable and
its transitions include, cofferdam or trench box backfill operations, monitor operations, and diver
burial methods.
4.7 Land Use
In accordance with Public Service Law (PSL) 122(1)(c) and 16 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR) 85, 86, and 88, this section presents a study of the potential land use impacts
resulting from the proposed Project and its associated substations located in the Towns of Hounsfield
on Galloo Island, and in the Town of Mexico. The study examines land use within the 150-foot wide
Proposed Route (ROW) and its 2,400-foot wide study area (1,200 feet on each side of the Proposed
Route centerline).
The land use studies included the following:

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 25

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

GIS Analysis to identify all land use within the Proposed Route ROW and within the study area

Statistical tabulation of all land use within the Proposed Route ROW and within the study area

An analysis and discussion of impacts on land use and proposed land use including airports,
railroads, and other transportation systems

Minimization and mitigation of impacts

A compilation of local land use plans (including comprehensive plans, open space plans, etc.) and
a tabulation of local ordinances applicable to the proposed facility

An inventory outlining applicable local land use plans and sections that apply to the Project is
presented in Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7 also provides a review of these plans and requested waivers from
unduly restrictive local ordinances.
4.7.1 Existing Conditions
Existing land use surrounding the project was analyzed using GIS analysis of real property
classification codes. Real property classification codes, as mandated by the New York State
Office of Real Property, are assigned by the local assessor to each parcel of land in a community;
therefore, those parcels containing an undefined designation have not been assigned a
classification by the local assessor. Land use within the Proposed Route ROW and within the
study area is listed according to station number in Tables 4.7.1-1 and 4.7.1-2, respectively.
There are nearly 300 possible land use types, grouped into the following categories:

Agricultural: Agricultural land use includes property used for the production of crops or
livestock. Examples of such uses include vacant agricultural land that is part of an operating
farm; livestock and livestock products; field crops; orchards; nurseries and greenhouses; and
fish, game, and wildlife preserves. Agricultural land use within the Proposed Route ROW and
within the study area is listed according to station number in Tables 4.7.1-3 and 4.7.1-4,
respectively.

Residential: Residential land use includes any property used for human habitation. These
living accommodations may include single family or multi-family dwellings, seasonal
residences, and mobile homes.

Vacant Land: Vacant land is any property that is not in use, is in temporary use, or lacks
any permanent improvements. Types of vacant land may include vacant lots in residential,
rural, commercial, and industrial areas; abandoned agricultural land; and public utility vacant
land.

Commercial: Commercial land use includes any property used for the sale of goods or
services. Property types under this classification include living accommodations including
apartments, hotels, mobile home parks, seasonal rentals such as camps and cottages; dining
establishments; motor vehicle services; storage, warehouse, and distribution facilities; retail

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 26

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

services; banks and office buildings; miscellaneous services including funeral homes, kennels
and veterinary clinics, greenhouses, billboards, and junkyards; and multiple use or
multipurpose buildings.

Recreation & Entertainment: Recreation and entertainment land use includes property
used for recreation, amusement, or entertainment, such as theaters, indoor and outdoor
sporting facilities, amusement facilities, beaches, marinas, camping facilities, and parks.

Community Services: Community service land use includes any property used for the wellbeing of the community including libraries, schools, religious facilities, orphanages, old age
homes, hospitals, government buildings, correctional facilities, cemeteries, Indian
reservations, roads, highways, and museums.

Industrial: Industrial land use includes any property used for the production and fabrication
of durable and nondurable man-made goods. Examples of industrial property include
manufacturing, mining, wells, and industrial product pipelines.

Public Services: Public service property is used to provide services to the general public.
Examples of public service properties include flood control, water supply, water treatment
and transmission facilities, communication, transportation, waste disposal, electric, and gas
facilities.

Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks: Wild, Forested, Conservation
Lands & Public Parks land use include private hunting and fishing clubs, state owned forest
lands, reforested lands, public parks, and conservation easements.

All areas within the Proposed Route ROW and within the study area were analyzed using real
property parcel data and attribute information from the respective county governments and the
New York State Office of Real Property. The results are shown in Tables 4.7.1-1 and 4.7.1-2,
which show the percentage breakdowns of each of the above-described general land use
categories within the Proposed Route ROW and within the study area, respectively. These tables
present land use percentages according to station number. Each bolded acreage value
represents the predominant land use surrounding the given station number.
4.7.2 Jefferson County Land Use
The Galloo Island collector substation will occupy approximately 1 acre within the Town of
Hounsfield, Jefferson County. Land use for all of Galloo Island is designated, using New York
State Office of Real Property classification codes, as residential (approximately 1,936 acres),
community services (28.7 acres), and vacant land (0.3 acres). The residential land is primarily
categorized as estate land, and within the 2,400-foot wide study area on Galloo Island, comprises
99.5% (640.33 acres), with the remaining 0.5% (3.13 acres) designated as community service
(Table 4.7.1-2). The two parcels on Galloo Island that are designated as community services
contain a U.S. Coast Guard Station and the Galloo Island Lighthouse. In addition, the Proposed
Route centerline crosses approximately 2.62 miles of residential land in the Town of Hounsfield

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 27

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

(Table 4.7.1-1). The 1 acre that comprises the proposed Galloo Island substation location is
within the area designated as residential land.
Approximately 20.6 miles of the 150-foot wide ROW is proposed for location in the Towns of
Henderson and Ellisburg, Jefferson County. Land use within the ROW primarily consists of
agricultural land, followed by vacant and residential land (Table 4.7.1-1). Refer to Section 0for
descriptions of the designations. Among the land that has been classified as agricultural, over
half of the acreage is used for dairy farming, while the remainder is used for field crops or is
designated as agricultural vacant (productive) land (Table 4.7.1-3). Agricultural vacant land
(productive) is the classification used for land that is part of an operating farm that may or may
not contain living accommodations. This designation is typically used when an operating farm is
comprised of several contiguous parcels (New York State Office of Real Property 2006).
Additionally in Jefferson County, the Proposed Route centerline crosses designated agriculture
districts for approximately 10.67 miles, which represents 22% of the onshore Proposed Route.
In Jefferson County, the 2,400-foot wide study area also exists in the Towns of Henderson and
Ellisburg. Land use within the study area is similar to that within the ROW, and primarily consists
of agricultural land, followed by vacant and residential land (Table 4.7.1-2). Among the land that
has been classified as agricultural, over half of the acreage is used for dairy farming, while the
remainder is used for field crops or is designated as agricultural vacant (productive) land (Table
4.7.1-4).
4.7.3 Oswego County Land Use
Approximately 19.3 miles of the 150-foot wide ROW is proposed for location in the Towns of
Sandy Creek, Richland, and Mexico, Oswego County. Land use within the ROW primarily consists
of vacant land, followed by residential and agricultural land (Table 4.7.1-1). Among the land that
has been classified as agricultural, over half of the acreage is designated as agricultural vacant
(productive), while the remainder is used for dairy products or is land used to raise cattle, calves,
and hogs (Table 4.7.1-3). Additionally in Oswego County, the Proposed Route centerline crosses
designated agriculture districts for approximately 5.48 miles, which represents 11.3% of the
onshore Proposed Route.
In Oswego County, the 2,400-foot wide study area in the Towns of Sandy Creek, Richland, and
Mexico and is similar to that within the ROW. The 2,400-foot wide study area primarily consists
of residential land, followed by vacant and agricultural land (Table 4.7.1-2). Among the land that
has been classified as agricultural, the majority is designated as agricultural vacant (productive)
land, while the remainder is used for raising cattle, calves, and hogs and dairy farming (Table
4.7.1-4). The Mexico interconnect substation will occupy approximately 4.7 acres.
4.7.4 Transportation Systems
4.7.4.1 Roadways and Traffic
There are approximately 46 locations where the Proposed Route crosses existing roadways.
An analysis of land use at each of these locations is presented in Table 4.7.4-1. Land use at
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 28

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

these areas primarily consists of agricultural land, followed by vacant and residential land.
Refer to Section 4.7.1 for descriptions of the designations. The land use in these areas that
has been classified as agricultural is used primarily for dairy farming. In addition, as
indicated in Table 4.7.4-2, there are approximately 131 locations where the Proposed Route
study area crosses existing roadways.
The Proposed Route crosses a total of 36 local roads at 38 locations; County Route 152 and
Jackson Road, which are both located in the Town of Henderson are each crossed twice.
Additionally, the Proposed Route crosses five state roads, and two federal roads at four
locations. In the Town of Richland, the Proposed Route crosses both Interstate-81 and
Jefferson Road/US Route 11 twice.
The New York State Transportation Federation Traffic Data Viewer (NYSDOT 2006), which
contains traffic counts for most state and federal roads, was used to obtain annual average
daily traffic figures, or traffic counts, where available, to show the degree of potential
exposure to the traveling public. Table 4.7.4-3 includes information on the road type, and
configuration. State Highway 13 through the Town of Richland is the busiest of the state
roads crossed by the Proposed Route; NYSDOT reported a 2006 annual average daily traffic
figure of approximately 9,784 cars along the section of State Highway 3 that is crossed by
the Proposed Route. Interstate-81, also in the Town of Richland is the busiest of the federal
roads crossed by the Proposed Route; NYSDOT reported a 2006 annual average daily traffic
figure of approximately 20,245 cars along the second section of Interstate 81 that is crossed
by the Proposed Route.
4.7.4.2 Airports
An analysis of land uses along the Proposed Route concludes that there are no airports
located within one mile of the Proposed Route ROW.
4.7.4.3 Railroads
The Proposed Route crosses the CSX Railroad, which is an active railroad, at one location
both the Towns of Richland and Mexico.
4.7.4.4 Navigable Waterways
The subaquatic section of the Proposed Route crosses Lake Ontario for approximately 6.76
miles from Galloo Island, across Stony Basin and Black River Channel, and where its landfall
at Stony Point in the Town of Henderson. Stony Basin and Black River Channel are both
navigable sections of Lake Ontario; however, these areas do not contain designated federal
shipping lanes. Once the Proposed Route makes landfall in the Town of Henderson, it
crosses navigable waterways at approximately nine locations along various sections of Sandy
Creek, South Sandy Creek, the Salmon River, and their associated tributaries. Table 4.7.4-4
provides the locations of where the Proposed Route crosses navigable waterways once
making landfall in the Town of Henderson.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 29

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.7.5 Land Use Impacts and Mitigation


4.7.5.1 Land Use and Agriculture
Land use patterns will not change with the addition of the proposed transmission line. The
potential for impact to designated land uses is greatest in those areas designated as either
agricultural or wild, forested, conservation lands and public parks. Permanent impacts to
these lands will be minimized by selective placement of structures, which will be determined
based on consultation with staff from the NYSDAM. In agricultural lands, this will minimize
impacts to active fields; and in areas of wild, forested, conservation lands and public parks,
selective placement will minimize the amount of forest fragmentation (refer to Appendix F for
a discussion of forest fragmentation). Additionally, in agricultural areas, topsoil protection
and restoration measures will be implemented to further reduce impacts. Upstate will
develop appropriate construction plans for active agriculture fields in consultation with the
agriculture resource operator and in accordance with the Agriculture Protection Guidelines
developed by the NYSDAM. Refer to the Draft EM&CP (Appendix D), Section 12.0 for the
proposed Agricultural Protection measures and Construction Specifications.
4.7.5.2 Transportation Systems
During construction, potential impacts on adjacent highways, roads, railroads, and navigable
water bodies will be mitigated by minimizing lay down areas and construction zone sizes,
employing efficient construction timing and scheduling, and employing control measures that
ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic.
Roadways and Traffic
Traffic patterns will not permanently change with the addition of the proposed transmission
line; however, patterns may be temporarily impacted during route construction and during
maintenance activities. The primary impact on transportation systems will be at road crossing
areas. An analysis of land use at each road crossing is presented in Table 4.7.4-1. Upstate
will coordinate with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and local
transportation and highway departments to develop appropriate plans for route construction
and maintenance. Specifically, Upstate will need to coordinate the construction of the route
where it will cross roads so that the stringing of the wires will avoid high-traffic periods.
Additionally, Upstate will need to schedule large equipment deliveries with local highway
officials to minimize traffic impacts.
Airports
As there are no airports located within one mile of the Proposed Route ROW, there are not
any anticipated impacts to local airports as a result of this Project.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 30

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Railroads
Coordination of construction activities with CSX will assure minimal interference at the
locations in the Towns of Richland and Mexico where the Proposed Route will cross the
railroad. Any unanticipated problems will be addressed with the active cooperation of CSX.
Navigable Waterways
Installation of the subaquatic cable will result in limited, short-duration impacts to navigation
in Lake Ontario. These impacts are typically limited to establishment of precautionary safety
zones around cable installation and work vessels. Vessels normally operating in these water
bodies would have to alter their courses around the work area; however, because the
subaquatic cable is not proposed for location through any designated federal shipping lanes,
this area is not anticipated to be heavily traveled by large vessels. Impacts to navigation and
establishment of the safety zones are addressed in coordination with the USCG and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority. However, once the cable is in regular operation, there are no
anticipated navigational impacts, as Upstate proposes to embed the cable in the lakebed.
During the Projects planning, design, and permitting, Upstate will need to coordinate closely
with the USCG and St. Lawrence Seaway Authority 2 to develop an installation schedule that
minimizes conflicts between the installation activities and vessel traffic. It is important to
note that the USCG routinely deconflicts waterways around ongoing marine construction
activities, and it is expected that the USCG would work with Upstate and its selected installer
to implement vessel coordination methods that would minimize impacts to Upstates
installation schedule and other waterway users. Installation of the cable in this waterbody
will require significant coordination with transiting vessels, the USCG, the St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority, and local harbormasters during installation activities.
Once it makes landfall in the Town of Henderson, the Proposed Route crosses all of the
navigable waterways in an overhead configuration so as not to impact navigation. Impacts
to these waterbodies will be minimized by selective placement of structures outside of
waterbodies, their banks, and any adjacent sensitive areas. The distance between Project
structures used to support the conductors will typically range between 400 feet and 600 feet.
Therefore, there is considerable flexibility in the placement of the individual structures,
allowing the avoidance and minimization of potential navigational impacts.
4.7.6 Applicable Land Use Management Plans and Coastal Zone Management Policies
4.7.6.1 Applicable Land Use Management Plans
As a means of determining consistency with local land use policies, a full review of each
municipality's local laws and ordinances was completed. This included a full review of

Lake Ontario is a part of the St. Lawrence Seaway and navigation is controlled jointly by the United States Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation (SLSDC), which is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the
Canadian Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC), which is a non-profit corporation.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 31

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

applicable zoning regulations for those communities with zoning. The zoning districts
through which the proposed project passes and whose regulations are unduly restrictive are
identified in Exhibit 7. The proposed Project is consistent with the Towns zoning regulations
in all communities in which a waiver of zoning regulations is not requested.
Comprehensive and Master Plans were collected for each community where available, which
included the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Henderson (2004) and the
Oswego County Comprehensive Plan (dated 1997, with updates dated 2008). Neither of the
plans specifically mentions electric transmission lines in their text, but rather generally refer
to preserving aesthetics and landscape character in their communities.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Henderson
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Henderson identifies Priority Character
Areas as areas with particularly spectacular scenic views and vistas, and collectively give
Henderson its identity, or that which makes Henderson a unique, desirable place to live, work
and visit. The Project is proposed for location through two of Hendersons identified Priority
Character Areas: the 2,000-ft wide Waterline Shoreline Corridor where the Proposed Route
makes landfall, and a 2,000-ft wide Scenic Highway Corridor where the Proposed Route
crosses County Route 78. Hendersons goal for these areas is to Preserve and enhance the
priority character areas throughout the Town by encouraging appropriate and compatible
development in scale and type.
Oswego County Comprehensive Plan
The primary purpose of the Oswego County Comprehensive Plan is to serve as a guide to
county decision makers as hey work to accommodate the physical growth and development
of Oswego County. The plan provides a statement of community goals, objectives, and
strategies along with comprehensive information regarding plan elements.
The Oswego County Comprehensive Plan identifies the seven ecological zones that exist
within the County limits. The ecological zones, as they are presented in the Oswego County
Comprehensive Plan are based upon the 1982 Ecological Zones of Northern New York that
were developed by the NYSDEC Division of Fish and Wildlife.
These zones were
distinguished on the basis of differences in both natural and physical factors. The Project is
proposed for location through two of Oswego Countys seven ecological zones: the Eastern
Ontario Plain and the Oswego Lowlands.
The Oswego County Comprehensive Plan also identifies several greenway corridors. Of the
five greenway corridors that exist, the Proposed Route crosses only one, the Lower Salmon
River Corridor. This proposed crossing is unavoidable, as the greenway bisects the Town of
Richland from Lake Ontario to the neighboring Town of Albion. In order to minimize impacts
to this corridor, Upstate proposed to cross the corridor perpendicularly and at a heavilytraveled and highly-commercial location adjacent to Interstate-81.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 32

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.7.6.2 Consistency with New York State Coastal Zone Management Policies
In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the State of New
York adopted in 1981 a Coastal Zone Management Program via the Waterfront Revitalization
and Coastal Resources Act (New York State Executive Law Article 42). The Coastal Zone
Management Program is administered by the NYSDOS.
A requirement of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act is that federal regulatory agency
activities must be consistent with a given states Coastal Management Programs and/or
Policies. Article 42, through its implementing regulations (19 NYCRR Part 600), requires that
State of New York actions must be consistent with the 44 coastal zone management policies
found in 19 NYCRR 600.5. Appendix K outlines the consistency of the proposed Project with
the standards and policies of the State of New Yorks Coastal Zone Management Program
and policies. As is shown within Appendix K, the proposed Project is consistent with the
applicable local and state policies.
4.8 Visual Assessment of Transmission Lines
4.8.1 Visual Studies Conducted
A VRA was conducted by Saratoga Associates, P.C. of Saratoga, New York, to assess the
potential visual impacts of the Project.
The VRA considered potential visual impacts from
construction and operation of the three transmission components of the Project, including the
approximately 39-mile long aboveground mainland transmission line, the 2.6-mile long
aboveground Galloo Island and the 9-mile-long subaquatic transmission line. The VRA is
included in Appendix O; the methodologies, results and conclusions of the VRA are presented in
this section.
The VRA process followed the NYSDECs Program Policy entitled Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts (NYSDEC 2000) (the NYSDEC Visual Policy) and State Environmental Quality Review
criteria, to assess visual impacts on resources considered sensitive for visual impacts (visual or
aesthetic resources). The methodology was also based on other generally accepted standards
and procedures by various government agencies, as detailed in the VRA.
The VRA included both quantitative (how much is seen and from what locations) and qualitative
(how it will be perceived) aspects of visual assessment, and included the following studies:

Definition of the existing landscape character/visual setting, to establish baseline visual


conditions from which visual changes were evaluated

A visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the geographic area
surrounding the proposed facility, from which portions of the Project might be seen
(quantitative analysis)

Identification of sensitive aesthetic resources within the viewshed study area

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 33

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Selection of key locations among the aesthetic resources from which detailed impact analyses
were conducted

Preparation of a computer model that depicts the appearance of the built facility inserted into
photographs of the landscape from the selected key locations

Evaluation of the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from
Project construction, completion and operation

Identification of proposed mitigation measures

The mainland transmission line will be the longest section of the Project and was the primary
focus of the VRA. In brief, visible components of the 230 kV mainland transmission line will
include a substation, two transition stations, and 384 monopole structures (tangent and angle
transmission towers) across its 39-mile long route. Pole heights will generally range between 90
and 105 feet in most locations. Less than 10 percent of the poles will reach between 110 and
130 feet in height; two poles are expected to reach 150 feet in height. Spans between poles will
average approximately 550 to 600 feet. Siting and structure selection will be finalized during the
detailed design phase.
The Galloo Island 230 kV transmission line will originate at the proposed substation on Galloo
Island, which is privately owned. From the substation it will run approximately 2.6 miles
aboveground to a transition station at the northeastern edge of the island. Along this portion of
the route, 45 approximately 80- to 85-foot-high monopoles are proposed. At the shoreline
transition station, the transmission line will convert from aboveground to the subaquatic electrical
cable.
The subaquatic cable will exit the Galloo Island transition station at the shoreline and run
underwater for approximately 9 miles to make landfall in the Town of Henderson. Because the
cable will be submerged, following installation it will not be visible to either boaters and or
viewers from land. Therefore, it was not assessed in the VRA.
The visual study area included areas within a three-mile radius on either side of the centerline of
the proposed route (hereafter referred to as the three-mile radius study area or visual study
area), as potential visual impacts of the relatively slender profiles of the aboveground
transmission structures will significantly lessen at distances beyond three miles. However, sitespecific consideration was given to resources of high cultural or scenic importance that were
located beyond this study area.
4.8.2 Existing Conditions
4.8.2.1 Landscape Character and Visual Setting
As described in Appendix O, landscape character is defined by patterns of landforms,
vegetation, water features, land use and human development. Landscape character is part

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 34

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

of the visual setting of an area, and establishes baseline conditions from which to evaluate
visual change.
Landforms and Vegetation: The study area is within the Eastern Ontario Lake plain, an
area of low-lying relief with shallow upland hills comprised of glacial till. The landscape
generally appears relatively flat or gently sloping with elevations increasing further away
from Lake Ontario. Elevations within the study area average between 100 and 200 feet
above Lake level, with some select areas reaching roughly 450 to 550 feet above Lake level.
Elevation change above the Lake is generally mild to moderate in slope, with the exception of
the area near the landfall (near Robert G. Wehle State Park), where cliffs abruptly rise up to
roughly 65 feet above Lake Ontario.
The study area is predominately rural and largely undeveloped. Throughout the study area,
broad tracts of agricultural land are either actively maintained or brush-covered due to
inactivity (fallow fields). Mature deciduous woodlands typically cover steep slopes, hilltops,
ravines, stream corridors, and other areas historically unsuitable for agricultural use.
Undulating hills and hillocks intersperse with the relatively flat and open agricultural land.
Water Features: Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual
landscape. The study area is bordered by Lake Ontario to the north and west. The shore of
Lake Ontario is irregular and is characterized by a series of large bays, peninsulas and
islands. Islands just beyond the study area include Galloo Island and Stony Island, both of
which are clearly visible from many vantage points along the coastline. There are a number
of waterways throughout the study area that drain westerly to Lake Ontario, and several
inland lakes and larger ponds (see Appendix O). Numerous private farm ponds, scattered
wetlands, and small streams are also found in the study area.
Land Use and Human Development: As previously noted, much of the land within the
study area is or until recently has been in agricultural use. The Town of Henderson, with a
population of only 1,377, is the smallest town in the study area, while the Town of Richland
is the largest, with 5,824 residents. Seven villages and approximately 10 smaller hamlets are
also located throughout the study area. These are described in detail in Appendix O.
Remaining residential areas are classified as rural residential.
With the exception of the more developed villages, such as Pulaski and Mexico, and hamlets
such as Henderson Harbor, Henderson and Pierrepont Manor, built features typically include
low to medium-density single-family residential structures and farmsteads. A moderate
amount of commercial and industrial development is scattered throughout the study area,
but these areas are generally located within or in close proximity to the community centers.
Development outside downtown areas of the larger villages varies from small (e.g., gas
stations) to larger freestanding stores and plazas and associated parking lots.
Rural residential areas include low-density rural homes of varying ages that are often located
along roads or on isolated lots out of view from local roads. Rural homes range from wellmaintained single-family frame construction to older housing stock in need of repair. Mobile
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 35

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

homes, either on isolated lots or within trailer parks, are also fairly common. Seasonal
homes, hunting and recreational camps and cabins are also scattered throughout the study
area, often in remote locations off of local roads.
The northern portion of the study area contains many waterfront homes that range from
estates setback from roadways to small frame cottages, seasonal camps, and mobile homes.
Boathouses and docks for recreational vessels are also common throughout the coastal area.
Shoreline properties are often cleared of vegetation to provide unencumbered views of the
waterway from residences.
Transportation Corridors: The primary transportation routes through the upland study
area are I-81, US Route 11, and New York State Route 3. These roads generally run in a
north to south direction; the former two routes generally remain within the study area, while
New York State Route 3 weaves in and out. Other major routes that intersect the study area
include New York State Routes 178, 193, 189, 3, 69 and 69A. Numerous county routes also
intersect the study area, including County Routes 78, 121, 48, 62 and 41. County routes and
local roads are typically two lane asphalt roads, although some gravel surfaced seasonal
roads also exist in the study area.
Existing Transmission ROWs: In total, approximately 39% of the Proposed Route has
been sited to occur adjacent to existing ROW corridors. When considering only mainland
portions of the Proposed Route, approximately 50% of the Proposed Route occurs adjacent
to existing ROW corridors.
4.8.2.2 Viewshed Mapping
Two types of viewshed maps were prepared to define the zone of visual influence, which is
considered the geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability that some
portion of the mainland transmission line would be visible. One viewshed map was prepared
showing potential visibility based upon screening provided by topography only; the second
incorporated screening provided by intervening mapped vegetation (see Figures 1 and 2 in
Appendix O, respectively).
A representation of the aboveground components of the proposed transmission line was
developed for the viewshed mapping, recognizing that final selected structure type, location
and height will vary along the line and will be determined in the detailed design phase after
certification. The appearance of the structures was based on engineering information
provided by Upstate. The heights of the structures generally range from 90 to 105 feet.
Less than ten percent of the poles are expected to reach between 110 and 130 feet, and two
poles will extend up to 150 feet in height. Representative structures along the mainland
transmission line are shown in Figure A23 of the VRA. A representative transmission line
structure proposed for use on Galloo Island is shown on Figure B4 of the VRA in Appendix O.
To calculate the maximum range of potential visibility, one control point was established at
the high point for each of the 384 structures being evaluated (located between the

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 36

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Henderson landfall and the Mexico substation). The resulting composite viewshed identifies
the geographic area within the study area where some portion of the Project is theoretically
visible. The mapped vegetated viewshed was then compared to recent aerial images of the
study area, to check for accuracy. While minor inconsistencies were noted, including areas
of recently cleared lands, the majority of woodland areas indicated on the aerial images
appeared consistent with the forested areas shown on the vegetated viewshed map, which
incorporated the National Land Cover dataset.
The VRA used ArcGIS 9.2 and ArcGIS Spatial Analyst software to generate viewshed areas
based on publicly available digital topographic and land cover datasets. Viewshed maps were
created by first importing a digital elevation model of the study area. Vegetation data was
extracted from the latest publicly available National Land Cover dataset from 2001; a 40-foot
vegetation height was assumed for areas mapped as completely forested. Based on field
observations, most trees in forested portions of the study area appear taller than 40 feet, so
the height used in the vegetated viewshed map represents a conservative estimate of the
efficacy of vegetative screening.
Potential screening by site-specific vegetative cover, such as small hedgerows, street trees
and individual trees and other areas of non-forest tree cover may not be represented in the
viewshed analysis. Furthermore, the National Land Cover dataset does not include visual
screening by existing structures. This is a particularly important distinction in the populated
areas such as the Villages of Pulaski and Mexico, and other commercial and residential areas
where existing structures are likely to provide significant screening of distant views. In these
conditions, the viewshed map conservatively overestimates potential Project visibility, as the
Project may be substantially screened from view by intervening structures.
Table 1 in the VRA Appendix O indicates the degree of mapped visibility of aboveground
Project structures within the 3-mile radius study area, as illustrated on the viewshed maps.
In brief, the table indicates that within the mapped Vegetated Viewshed (Figure 2 in the
VRA) one or more of the proposed transmission structures are anticipated to be visible from
approximately 41 percent of the three-mile radius study area. Approximately 59 percent of
the study area will likely have no visibility of any of the structures due to intervening
landforms or vegetation. Visibility is most common from properties adjacent or in close
proximity to the mainland transmission line. Visibility will also be evident from agricultural
uplands with cleared lands and down slope vistas in the direction of the mainland
transmission line.
Potential views from each village, as indicated by the vegetated viewshed maps, are
described in detail in the VRA in Appendix O.
4.8.2.3 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources
Visually sensitive resources of statewide significance, those considered of local interest and
other places selected for analysis of potential visibility were inventoried through a review of
published maps and available documents and online research. Field confirmation of visibility
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 37

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

occurred primarily by windshield survey from publicly accessible locations on October 13, 20,
24 and November 12, 2008.
Types of visually sensitive resources in the study area included recreational resources (three
state parks, four NYSDEC Wildlife Management Areas, and three State Forests), cultural
resources (designated historic sites and structures), and transportation corridors. These are
numbered and listed on Table 4 in Appendix O, together with the mapped visibility indicated
by the two types of viewshed maps, and the findings of the field reconnaissance. Locations
of numbered resources are shown on Figures A1a (key) through A1d, overlain on the
vegetated viewshed map. Based upon observations during the field reconnaissance, the
vegetated viewshed map approximates potential visibility more closely than the topographic
viewshed map, and was therefore utilized in the VRA. Additional information about each
resource is provided in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the VRA in Appendix O.
In addition to the resources identified within the study area, four resources of statewide
significance were identified beyond the study area. Three are located in the Town of Sandy
Creek along Lake Ontario, approximately 4 to 4.6 miles from the nearest centerline of the
mainland transmission line. Two are NYSDEC-designated Unique Areas (Sandy Island Beach
and Sandy Pond Beach) and one is the 16-acre Sandy Creek State Park. Potential visibility
was also assessed from the 635-acre Trout Brook State Forest in the Towns of Boylston and
Orwell, a minimum of 4.8 miles from the mainland transmission line.
Resources of Statewide Significance and Local Interest
1. Aesthetic resources of statewide significance as identified in the NYSDEC Visual Policy
were inventoried and evaluated for potential adverse visual effects. The categories of
resources specified in the NYSDEC Policy are provided in Appendix O.
Places of local sensitivity or high intensity of use were also inventoried, even though they
may not meet the broader statewide threshold. Aesthetic resources of local interest in the
study area were generally compiled from the following general categories:

Recreation areas including playgrounds, athletic fields, boat launches, fishing access,
campgrounds, picnic areas, ski centers, and other recreational facilities/attractions

Areas devoted to the conservation or the preservation of natural environmental features


(e.g., reforestation areas/forest preserves, wildlife management areas, open space
preserves)

A bicycling, hiking, ski touring, or snowmobiling trail designated as such by a


governmental agency

Architectural structures and sites of traditional importance as designated by a


governmental agency

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 38

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Parkways, highways, or scenic overlooks and vistas designated as such by a


governmental agency

Important urban landscape including visual corridors, monuments, sculptures, landscape


plantings, and urban green space

Important architectural elements and structures representing community style and


neighborhood character

An interstate highway or other high volume (relative to local conditions) road of regional
importance

A passenger railroad or other mass transit route

A residential area greater than 50 contiguous acres and with a density of more than one
dwelling unit per acre

Additional Locations
Given the rural character of much of the study area, the inventory of aesthetic resources was
further expanded to include several open vistas along sparsely populated rural roadways.
Most were identified during field observations.
In summary, each inventoried visual resource was evaluated to determine whether a visual
impact might exist, by reviewing viewshed maps and making field observations of each from
publicly accessible areas, to assess potential views of any of the Projects overhead
transmission line structures.
Of the 145 visual resources inventoried on Table 4, potential views at 50 locations would
likely be screened by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and were therefore
eliminated from further study.
4.8.2.4 Other Factors Affecting Potential Visual Impacts
The inventory of visual resources was organized into several recognizable elements:
Landscape Units
Landscape units are areas with common characteristics of landform, water resources,
vegetation, land use, and land use intensity. Within the visual resources study area, five
distinctive landscape units were defined and their visual quality assessed in the VRA. A
summary follows; more detailed descriptions are provided in the VRA in Appendix O:

Village Centers: Generally built structures dominate the visual landscape within the
seven village center landscape units found in the study area. Views in this unit may be
considered to be of moderate visual quality depending on the character and composition
of built and natural features within view;

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 39

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Hamlet Centers: Characterized by low to medium density clusters of older residential


buildings, views within the ten rural hamlet landscape units may be considered to be of
moderate visual quality, depending on the character and composition of built and natural
features within view;

Rural Agricultural Landscapes: Open often agricultural lands, hedgerows and


occasional woodlots characterized this unit, with views often limited by foreground
vegetation and intervening hills (though distant vistas may be available from hilltops)
define rural agricultural landscapes in the study area. Views within this landscape unit
may be considered of moderate visual quality.

State Protected Lands: These lands offer recreational opportunities, often in wooded
settings. Although distant views are generally not found in the heavily-forested state
protected lands landscape units, the views may be considered to be of moderate to high
visual quality depending on the character and composition of built and natural features
within view; and

Waterfront Areas: many views within the waterfront landscape units are focused
primarily on views of the Lake Ontario and may be considered of moderate to high visual
quality, depending on the character and composition of built and natural features within
view.

Viewer Groups
Viewers engaged in different activities in the same landscape unit are likely to perceive their
surroundings differently. Viewers are grouped to help understand the sensitivity and probable
reactions of potential observers to visual change resulting from the proposed Project.

Local residents: The study area, with the exceptions of the community centers, is quite
rural with a relatively small year round population when compared to other areas of New
York State. The most populated town within the study area is Richland with 5,824
residents; the most populated village within the study area is Pulaski with 2,398
residents. These individuals would view the Project structures from homes, businesses,
and local roads. Except when involved in local travel, such viewers are likely to be
stationary and could have frequent and/or prolonged views of the Project. They know the
local landscape and may be sensitive to changes in particular views that are important to
them. Conversely, the sensitivity of an individual observer to a specific view may be
diminished over time due to repeated exposure.

Through travelers: Commuters and through travelers would see Project structures
from highways. These viewers are typically moving and focusing on the road in front of
them. Consequently, their views may be peripheral, intermittent, and/or of relatively brief
duration. Given a general unfamiliarity or infrequent exposure to the regional or local
landscape, travelers are likely to have a lower degree of sensitivity to visual change than
would local residents and workers.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 40

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Recreational users: This group generally includes local residents involved in outdoor
recreational activities, as well as visitors who come to the area specifically to enjoy the
cultural, recreational, scenic resources, and open spaces of the Thousand Islands region.
The sensitivity of recreational users to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual
quality is an important and integral part of the recreational experience. The presence of
additional aboveground transmission lines may diminish the aesthetic experience for
those that believe the rural landscape should be preserved for agricultural, rural
residential, open space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high sensitivity to
the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of
their exposure to the proposed Project.

Tourists: This region of New York State is a widely recognized vacation destination
drawing thousands of visitors year-round. Tourists come to the area specifically to enjoy
the historic, recreational, and scenic resources of the lakes, rivers and islands. Most
tourists and seasonal residents would have high sensitivity to the visual quality and
landscape character, regardless of the frequency or duration of their exposure to the
Project.

Distance Zones
Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrast between an object and its
surroundings. Distance zones established by the U.S. Forest Service and used in the NYSDEC
Visual Policy were used in the VRA, and assist in understanding the effect of distance on
potential visual impacts.

Foreground (0 to mile): At a foreground distance, viewers typically have a very


high recognition of detail. Cognitively, in the foreground zone, human scale is an
important factor in judging spatial relationships and the relative size of objects. From this
distance, the sense of form, line, color and textural contrast with the surrounding
landscape is highest. The visual impact is likely to be considered the greatest at a
foreground distance.

Middle ground ( mile to 3 miles): This is the distance where elements begin to
visually merge or join. Colors and textures become somewhat muted by distance, but are
still identifiable. Visual detail is reduced, although distinct patterns may still be evident.
Viewers from middle ground distances recognize features such as tree stands, building
clusters and small landforms. Scale is perceived in terms of identifiable features of
development patterns. From this distance, the contrast of color and texture are identified
more in terms of the regional context than by the immediate surroundings.

Background (3 to 5 miles to horizon): At this distance, landscape elements lose


detail and become less distinct. Atmospheric perspective tends to changes colors to
blue-grays, while surface characteristics are lost. Visual emphasis is on the outline or
edge of one landmass or water resource against another, with a strong skyline element.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 41

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Duration, Frequency and Circumstances of Views


The analysis of a viewers experience must include the distinction between stationary and
moving observers. The length of time and the circumstances under which a view is
encountered is influential in characterizing the importance of a particular view. In brief,
stationary views are experienced from fixed viewpoints, which may include residential
neighborhoods, recreational facilities, historic resources and other cultural important
locations.
Stationary views offer the viewer sufficient time, either from a single observation or repeated
exposure, to interpret and understand the physical surroundings. For this reason, stationary
viewers have a higher potential for understanding the elements of a view than do moving
viewers. Moving views are those experienced in passing, such as from moving vehicles,
where the time available for a viewer to cognitively experience a particular view is limited.
Appendix O summarizes the factors affecting visual impact (landscape unit, viewer group,
distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of view) described above for each
inventoried visual resource found to have a potential view of the proposed Project.
4.8.2.5 Anticipated Project Visibility
Field Confirmation of Potential Visibility
On October 13, 20 and 24, 2008, and November 12, 2008 a field crew drove public roads and
visited many of the potentially affected inventoried visual resources (as determined through
viewshed mapping), to document existing visibility in the direction of mainland transmission
line structures. Photographs were taken from affected visual resources using a 12.2-mega
pixel digital camera with a lens setting of approximately 50mm to simulate normal human
eyesight relative to scale. The location selected for each photograph was judged by the field
observer to be the most unobstructed line-of-sight to the Project from the subject visual
resource. To the degree possible, photographs were taken at a time of day when the sun
was to the back of the photographer to minimize the effect of glare within the cameras field
of view and to maximize visible contrast of the landscape being photographed.
The precise coordinates of each photo location were recorded in the field using a handheld
global positioning system (GPS) unit. To determine the direction of the proposed wind
turbines from each photo location, the precise coordinates of all proposed turbines were preprogrammed into the GPS as a waypoint. The GPS waypoint direction indicator (arrow
pointing along calculated bearing) was used to determine the appropriate bearing for the
camera, so that a proposed structure would be generally centered in the field of view of each
photograph.
Key Resources Selected for Photo Simulation
To demonstrate how the actual Project structures would appear within the study area from a
variety of distances and locations, photo simulations from a total of 23 visually sensitive

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 42

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

resources or locations were prepared to represent daytime views of the built Project.
Twenty-one locations were selected to simulate views of the mainland transmission line.
These are listed in Table 6; locations are shown on Figures A1b through A1d of Appendix O.
Two locations were selected to simulate views of the Galloo Island transmission line as it
would be seen by boaters off the south side of Galloo Island on Lake Ontario. These are
listed in Table 7; locations are shown on Figure B1 of Appendix O.
The specific location of each simulation was chosen for its relevance to the factors affecting
visual impact, including viewer/user groups, landscape units, distance zones and
duration/frequency and circumstances of view. These are described in Section 3.3 of the
VRA and were summarized above.
The simulation locations were selected to be representative of how the Project will appear at
varying distance and within different landscape characters. Locations were generally
selected within mile of the Project, as the greatest potential impacts are from areas with
foreground views. Because the views of the Project will primarily affect local residents, and
because the most open vistas of the Project typically occur along rural roadways, a number
of locations selected for photo simulation include these landscape types, even though the
number of viewers will not be large.
Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a three-dimensional computer rendering
of the proposed Project into the base photograph taken from each corresponding key
receptor. Additional detail on simulation methodology is provided in Appendix O.
The appearance of the structures was based on engineering information provided by Upstate.
The heights of the structures generally range from 90 to 105 feet. Less than ten percent of
the poles are expected to reach between 110 and 130 feet, and two poles will extend up to
150 feet in height. Representative structures are shown in Figure A23 and Figure B4 of the
VRA in Appendix O.
Photo simulations of potential views of the mainland transmission line are provided as
Figures A2 through A 22 in Appendix O; locations are shown on Figures A1b through A1d.
Photo simulations of potential views of the Galloo Island transmission line are provided as
Figures B2 and B3 in Appendix O; locations are shown on Figure B1.
The photo simulations in Appendix O have been printed using an 11-inch by 17-inch page
format. At this image size, the page should be held generally at arms length so that the
scene will appear at approximately the correct scale.
4.8.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Analysis of the mapped vegetated viewshed indicates that approximately 59 percent of the study
area will likely have no visibility of the proposed mainland transmission line structures due to
intervening landforms or vegetation.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 43

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The Project has been sited to utilized existing transmission ROWs to the extent feasible, to
minimize construction of new ROWs. Almost 50 percent of the 39-mile mainland Proposed Route
(approximately 19 miles) will utilize existing corridors, including railroad, transportation,
transmission and gas pipeline ROWs. Use of these existing corridors will minimize visual impacts
associated with creation of new corridors.
The heights of the 384 transmission structures proposed along the mainland route are expected
to range generally between 90 and 105 feet. Less than ten percent of the poles are expected to
reach between 110 and 130 feet, and two poles will extend up to 150 feet in height.
Representative structures along the mainland transmission line are shown in Figure A23 of the
VRA.
Approximately 45 structures are proposed along the Galloo Island transmission route, all
approximately 85 feet tall. A representative transmission line structure on Galloo Island is shown
on Figure B4 of the VRA in Appendix O. Transmission cables in the subaquatic portion of the
Proposed Route will be submerged and not visible following installation.
The Project will require additional selective cutting along currently vegetated sections of the
Proposed Route. Clearings at the crest of hills may be more evident at longer distances and the
forms of the landforms may be interrupted.
4.8.3.1 Potential Visual Impacts during Construction
Construction of the mainland transmission line will require use of mobile cranes and other
large construction vehicles. Components will be delivered via large semi-trucks. Cranes and
large construction vehicles will also be needed to construct the Galloo Island transmission
line; these will be delivered by barge. Barges and other vessels will also be utilized during
installation of the Subaquatic Cable.
Construction of the Upland Transmission Lines will require vegetative clearing along the
ROWs. However, the construction period is expected to be relatively short. As such,
construction related visual impacts will be brief and are not expected to result in prolonged
visual impacts to area residents or visitors.
The upland ROWs will be allowed to partially re-vegetate to low scrub/shrub conditions.
However, trees along the upland ROWs will be permanently cleared so as not to interfere
with Project structures during operation.
4.8.3.2 Project Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns
Within the study area for the mainland transmission line, vegetated viewshed mapping
indicates that in 59 percent of the six-mile-wide study area, no proposed transmission
structures are expected to be visible. Table 1 of Appendix O provides additional detail
Given the rural nature of the study area, visible colors are natural, muted shades of green,
brown, gray, and other earth tones. When viewed from a distance, the landscape maintains a

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 44

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

rather uniform and unbroken blending of colors, which tend to fade with hazing of varying
atmospheric conditions. The landscape throughout the study area contains a network of
existing transmission lines and corresponding structures.
The regional landscape consists of gently rolling upland with sinuous hills rising above clearly
defined and often steep-sided valleys. The horizon generally appears as a sinuous curvilinear
line formed by the rolling hills. Few views are anticipated where the proposed structures
would break the horizon. The structures will break the tree line when viewers are at a lower
elevation looking up towards the structures.
Where visible, the conductors will also introduce horizontal lines into the landscape. These
lines will be thin and visible only at relatively close distances. Required vegetation clearing
will also create vertical lines and breaks in continuous vegetation stands and thereby increase
visibility along the Project corridor. These clearings may be seen at greater distances.
The reddish-brown color of the corten steel structures will most often be viewed against an
adjacent landform or vegetation. Under these conditions the structures would be highly
compatible with the hue, saturation and brightness (or dullness) of the background landform
and distant elements of the natural landscape. Gray structures will be used at the substation
and transition stations; these structures will not be as compatible with the landscape.
Overall, color contrast will decrease with increasing distance and/or periods of increased
atmospheric haze or precipitation.
The structures have been specifically selected to minimize textural contrast and provide a
more simple form than skeletal (or lattice) frame towers. Smooth metallic structures used at
the substation and transition station will not blend in as easy within the natural landscape.
The proposed transmission structures will be of similar scale to existing transmission
structures that currently traverse the study area. In many cases, the proposed structures
may be the tallest visible elements on the horizon and will be disproportionate to many
elements commonly visible on the regional landscape. From many foreground vantage
points, the contrast of the proposed structure with commonly recognizable features may
result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element.
However, when viewed from middle ground and background vantage points, the perceived
scale and spatial dominance will begin to lessen.
4.8.3.3 Potential Visual Impacts on Inventoried Resources
Based on analysis of the mapped vegetated viewshed, the mainland transmission line
structures would likely be screened by intervening topography and/or vegetation view at
approximately 50 of the 145 inventoried resources considered visually sensitive (see Section
3.3.5 of Appendix O). One or more of the proposed transmission towers would likely be
visible from approximately 95 of 145 (approximately 66%) inventoried visual resources (see
Table 5 and Section 5 in Appendix O). These are described below by resource type. It
should be noted that based on field observations, many locations where potential Project

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 45

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

visibility is indicated by the vegetated viewshed map, views of the Project will often be
screened by the presence of mature vegetation, street trees, landscaping, and intervening
structures.
Resources of Statewide Significance
Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix O identify resources of statewide significance within the visual
study area. Those resources that will be affected by views of the proposed Project are listed
below, with the number of expected visible transmission structures, primary viewer groups,
and the distances to the nearest structure from the resource:

Southwick Beach State Park (Map ID 123) is protected state lands in the Town of
Ellisburg. Three proposed structures are expected to be visible to recreational viewers,
at a closest distance of approximately 2.3 miles;

Lakeview Marsh Wildlife Management Area (Map ID 124) is protected state lands in the
Town of Ellisburg. Four proposed structures are expected to be visible to recreational
viewers, at a closest distance of approximately 2.8 miles;

Seaway Trail Scenic Byway: Of the approximate 20 miles of the Seaway Trail (New York
State Route 3) traversing the study area, one or more of the proposed transmission
structures is expected to be visible from approximately 9.5 miles (approximately 47.5%)
of the trail;

Robert G. Wehle State Park (Map ID 109) is protected state lands in the Town of
Henderson. One structure is expected to be visible to recreational viewers, but many
views toward the Project will be screened by vegetation. Views may be available along
the Park boundary nearest the Project and from the maintenance facility near the
intersection of Windmill and Military Roads;

NYSDEC fishing access locations scattered throughout the study area; and

Three historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the Pulaski
Village Historic District; the Sandy Creek Historic District, and the Mexico Village Historic
District)

The VRA concluded that visibility of the mainland transmission line from any of the affected
resources of statewide significance will not result in detrimental effect on the perceived
beauty of the resource, nor will the Project cause the diminishment of public enjoyment and
appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character or quality of such a place.
Resources of Local Importance and Other Places for Analysis
Portions of the mainland transmission line will be visible from resources of local importance
that do not meet the broader statewide threshold for visual significance. Most commonly
affected will be roadside views along various state and county highways (these are termed
Other Places for Analysis in the VRA). Views were found along portions of many of the state
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 46

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

routes within the study area (see simulations in Figures A3, A5, A18, A19, A20, and A21 in
Appendix O). Several county and town roads will also have intermittent views of the
mainland transmission line at varying distance (see Figures A2, A4, A10, A12, A13, A14, A15,
A16, and A17 in Appendix O). Potential visual impacts on visitors driving through the study
area will be dependent upon the duration of ones view of the Project while driving.
Distant views of the Project will be substantially limited or screened from most local parks
and recreational facilities, residential neighborhoods in the hamlets and villages, due to
mature trees, topography and intervening residential, and in some cases commercial
structures. Filtered views from the John Ben Snow Community Center (Map ID 55) in the
Village of Pulaski will be available to visitors (see Figure A9), through or above the
vegetation. It should be noted that traffic on Interstate 81 is also visible from the community
center.
The mainland transmission line will cross the Salmon River, east of Interstate 81 within the
Village of Pulaski. Views of the Project from the river will include structures, vegetation
clearing, and overhead wires. Based on field review, access to this section of the river is not
easily available but can be reached by walking the river from access points to the north and
south.
Based on viewshed analysis, views from the Oswego County Fairgrounds will be possible. The
transmission structures will most likely be seen above the vegetation from elevated views
within the fairgrounds (i.e., from the top of grandstand structures). Generally, it is
anticipated that an increase in potential viewers from the fairgrounds will occur when it is in
use. Exposure may be further reduced by such factors as viewer activities and if the activities
take place during daylight or nighttime hours.
Visibility of the Project along the shore of Lake Ontario is anticipated to be minimal due
screening caused by vegetation. Viewers will notice a clearing in vegetation where the
transmission line extends underground to the first structure (transition station), which is
located approximately 790 feet from the shoreline. The potential for visibility is anticipated to
decrease the further the viewer is from the shore. Although there is a clear line of sight to
the mainland transmission line, visibility will be further reduced by such factors as distance,
atmospheric conditions, and viewer activities.
Typical views are characterized by patchwork of undeveloped woodland interspersed with
working farmland surrounded by rolling hills, ravines and valleys. While such pastoral views
are common throughout the region, most residents and visitors would agree that the
agricultural lands and valleys within the study area are of moderate to high visual quality.
When visible, the well-defined vertical form of the new transmission structures on the horizon
will introduce a distinct perpendicular element into the landscape, especially when the viewer
is in close proximity to the mainland transmission line. The Project will require additional
clear-cutting along currently vegetated sections of the Proposed Route. Clearings at the crest

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 47

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

of hills may be more evident at longer distances and the forms of the landforms may be
interrupted.
Galloo Island Transmission Line
Open views of the Galloo Island transmission line will be available from offshore locations, as
well as the south and northeast sides of the Island, in the vicinity of Gil Harbor and the
proposed transition station. Views will be most available to recreation boaters and
commercial vessels; there currently are no year-round residents on Galloo Island. Most views
will fleeting and short in duration, while some may be long-term, particularly for those who
may fish in the waters in close proximity to the Island. Visibility of the required vegetation
clearings along the route will be more noticeable closer to the Island.
The simulations contained in Appendix B of the VRA show how the views will look after the
transmission line and the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm are constructed. The Galloo
Island transmission line will add additional horizontal and vertical lines, but will not be the
dominant structures on the Island.
In addition to the transmission towers, a substation and transition station will be located in
the center of the Island and along the northeast shoreline, respectively. While it is
anticipated that the transition station will be visible, the substation will be generally screened
from offshore viewers as a result of screening by topography and vegetation (see Figure B2
in Appendix O).
Subaquatic Cable
The proposed transmission cable across Lake Ontario will be subaquatic. The cables at the
landfalls are proposed to be installed via horizontal directional drilling technology. After
installation, this portion of the Project will be submerged and not visible.
Conclusions
The mainland transmission line portion of the Project will be adjacent to existing ROWs along
approximately 50 percent of the Proposed Route. Existing aboveground transmission
structures and utility and transportation ROWs now traverse much of the visual study area.
Although the proposed structures may be taller and more noticeable than many of the
existing structures in the area, the Project is not anticipated to significantly affect the visual
or aesthetic characteristics of resources within the study area, and will be consistent with the
existing visual character in the study area.
The Galloo Island transmission line will add additional horizontal and vertical lines, but will
not be the dominant structures on the Island.
The proposed transmission cable across Lake Ontario will be subaquatic. The cables at the
landfalls are proposed to be installed via horizontal directional drilling technology. After
installation, this portion of the Project will be submerged and not visible.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 48

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The VRA in Appendix O found no adverse visual impacts due to construction or operation of
the Project on visually sensitive resources. The following proposed mitigation measures will
help to minimize visual impacts associated with the Project.
4.8.3.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures in the NYSDEC Visual Policy have been and will continue
to be considered during the planning and design stage of the Project, to reduce potential
visual impacts.
Vegetative Screening: Planting of vegetation can be an effective measure to visually
screen proposed structures from nearby resources, especially on property adjacent to the
ROW (with the landowners consent). Landscaping around transition stations and substations
would also help minimize visual impacts. A 75-foot-wide buffer of existing vegetation,
where currently present, would be retained along Interstate 81 to reduce potential views of
the Project by those drivers traveling north and south on the highway.
Professional Design/Project Siting/Relocation: Sensitive siting of a proposed project is
among the most effective strategies to avoid or reduce visual impacts. To the extent
practicable, Upstate has already taken siting into consideration, and has proposed an
alignment, and substation and transition station locations, which, for the most part, are
substantially set back from sensitive receptors, including many roadways.
The following siting strategies were used:

The mainland transmission line will parallel or utilize existing transmission, gas, and
railroad ROWs, where feasible.

The number of times the mainland transmission line will cross Interstate 81 was limited
to the extent possible.

Where possible, the mainland transmission line will cross roadways at perpendicular or
roughly perpendicular angles, which will reduce the visual exposure time for people
traveling by car, foot, or bicycle along public roadways.

Vegetation clearing will be kept to a minimum, yet not impede operation.

The Mexico substation is sited adjacent to the NYPA ROW.

One set of davit arms will be used on single circuit structures (tangent and corner).

Pole styles will be limited, which will reduce visual impacts.

Camouflage/Disguise: By utilizing corten steel poles, the color of the majority of the
transmission structures (not including substations) will be more compatible with the
surrounding landscape.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 49

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Low Profile/Downsizing: Where possible, the shortest possible structure will be used.
Alternative Technologies: Although the use of wooden or laminated steel poles may be
considered in visually sensitive areas, given the structural requirements to support the single
circuit and a possible second circuit in the future, opportunities for alternate technologies are
limited.
Non-specular Materials: Many of the proposed poles will be corten steel, and therefore
will not be as reflective. Although the proposed substations will use metallic equipment and
structures, these facilities are sufficiently removed from visually sensitive receptors and do
not warrant painting of metallic surfaces. Non-specular conductor material may also be
considered.
Lighting: No lighting of the transmission lines is anticipated. Lighting of substations and
transition stations will be at minimum levels necessary for safety. Light shields will be
considered to reduce light trespass onto adjacent lands, if necessary.
Maintenance: During construction, the minimal width necessary to facilitate equipment
access will be cleared. Temporarily cleared areas will be restored to allow the continuation of
agricultural uses where present, or will be allowed to regenerate to scrub/shrub vegetation.
Vegetation will be periodically cut to maintain scrub/shrub conditions. However, trees will
not be allowed to mature. A vegetation management plan will be developed to be used in
periodically maintaining the vegetation within the ROW.
Decommissioning: At the end of the Projects lifetime, the transmission structures,
substations, transition stations, and other associated structures no longer are necessary will
be removed and the areas stabilized and restored, depending on planned future uses.
In conclusion, the VRA found no adverse visual impacts due to construction or operation of
the Project on visually sensitive resources.
4.9 Cultural Resources
In accordance with 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c), this section describes the known cultural resources in
the vicinity of the proposed route of the Project. Potential measures to mitigate construction impacts
on these resources are also described as appropriate. Descriptions of Project locations are presented
in Exhibit 2, Location of Facilities, and Exhibit 4, Section 4.2, Project Description. OPRHP maintains
an inventory of cultural resources, including archaeological sites and aboveground resources
(buildings, structures, and landscapes). OPRHPs role in the review process is to ensure that effects
or impacts on cultural resources are considered and avoided or mitigated during the project planning
process.
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., located in Buffalo, New York, conducted two Phase 1A cultural
resources investigations evaluating the potential for previously recorded and unrecorded
archaeological or historic resources to be present within the areas that will be potentially affected by
the Project.
These investigations took place between November 2007 and October 2008.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 50

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Methodology and results of the Panamerican Consultants, Inc. studies are detailed in the
supplemental cultural resources investigation report, which is included in Appendix I, and is
summarized below:

Phase 1A Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm, Galloo Island
Project Area, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York, dated February 2008 (Schieppati
et al. 2008a).

Phase 1A Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed Upstate NY Power Corp Hounsfield
Transmission Line Project Area, Town of Hounsfield, Henderson, and Ellisburg, Jefferson County,
and Towns of Sandy Creek, Richland, and Mexico, Oswego County, New York, dated October
2008 (Schieppati et al. 2008b).

The cultural resources investigations are intended to assist the Towns of Hounsfield, Henderson,
Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, Richland, and Mexico in evaluating the potential effects of the Project on
archaeological sites and/or historic properties in accordance with their obligations under the Article
VII process. Consultation about the overall Project (including the Hounsfield Wind Farm) was
initiated with the NYSHPO at a 2007 meeting at the OPRHP. Consultation with the USACE is also
anticipated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
This study was conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Historic
Preservation Act, the New York Public Service Commission Article VII regulations, as well as all state
and federal legislation that are pertinent (Schieppati et al. 2008b). The study was also conducted to
assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
A Section 106 consultation would be required as part of the USACE permitting process to review the
potential of the Project to impact culturally significant resources, as well as a consultation with the
OPHRP under Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.
For submarine cable projects, cultural resources typically include shipwrecks and culturally or
architecturally significant structures at the cable landfalls. The first step in assessing the presence or
absence of such resources is to engage a cultural resources expert to conduct a Phase 1A cultural
resource assessment of the proposed Project vicinity. This includes review of databases and review
of the side-scan sonar and magnetometer data obtained during the marine geophysical survey. The
results of the Phase 1A survey are submitted to the NYSHPO for review. The result of the NYSHPOs
review is typically a letter describing any cultural resources that could be potentially impacted by the
Project, and recommended means for reducing or eliminating the potential for impactsuch as
avoidance. If cultural resources are identified during this assessment, the cable route or design is
typically adjusted to avoid the resource entirely, which eliminates the potential for impact to the
resource.
4.9.1 Archaeological Assessment
A Phase 1A survey included a background search, literature review, field inspection of the Project
area and a site file check. A review of the archaeological site files of the OPRHP and the New
York State Museum was the initial step in the research. Files were examined for known

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 51

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

archaeological resources within the six-mile corridor (three miles on each side) of the APE.
Cultural resources identified for the site included archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic),
standing structures, and other aboveground features.
For purposes of this summary, prehistoric sites include all those with Native American materials
that range from the Paleo-Indian period through the Contact period and include historic Native
American sites. The historic sites range in size and complexity and include singular features
ranging from wells to entire farmsteads. The search of the archaeological site files identified a
total of 101 archaeological sites within the search corridor along the Project route. See Table 4.1
in Appendix I for sites located along the Project route that exist within the six-mile corridor.
4.9.1.1 Existing Conditions Upland Route
As described previously, the Project route is comprised of upland and subaquatic portions.
The upland portion on Galloo Island consists of approximately 2.62 miles in the Town of
Hounsfield, Jefferson County. The upland portion on the mainland consists of approximately
39.03 miles of overhead and 0.34 miles of underground transmission lines and runs from the
Henderson landfall location in Jefferson County to an interconnection substation located in
Mexico, Oswego County, New York. The Project route is depicted in Figure 2.1-1.
Jefferson County
The Phase 1A cultural resource investigation of Galloo Island identified no previously
recorded archaeological sites (Schieppati et al. 2008a). Within the six-mile corridor on the
mainland, Jefferson County had 58 archaeological sites identified. Of these 58 sites, 47 are
prehistoric. Nine pre-historic sites are located within 1,500 ft of the APE and five of these
sites are located immediately adjacent to the Project route. All of the sites located adjacent
to the route were previously identified and recorded (Schieppati et al. 2008b). These sites
included prehistoric earthworks, two camps, and two traces of occupation sites. Traces of
occupation sites are often identified anecdotally and signify the sensitivity of an area
(Schieppati et al. 2008b).
Prehistoric sensitivity of the Galloo Island portion of the Project route is considered to be low
to moderate (Schieppati et al. 2008a). The prehistoric sites identified within one mile of the
mainland Project route, but not adjacent, included two camp sites, a traces of occupation
site, two prehistoric earthworks and four sites with no information (Schieppati et al. 2008b).
Prehistoric sites located within the one through three-mile area on each side of the Project
route numbered 29 and were of similar origin to those within one-mile of the APE; however,
additional sites were identified as ossuaries, burial sites, and a village (Schieppati et al.
2008b). The population density in the Project area was once high and would explain the
presence of such sites as burial and village.
The 11 historic sites within Jefferson County are located outside of one-mile from the APE
and contained structural remnants (Schieppati et al. 2008b).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 52

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Oswego County
In Oswego County, 43 archaeological sites were identified within the six-mile corridor. Of
these 43 sites, 21 are prehistoric. Four prehistoric sites are located within 1,500 ft of the
APE and two of these sites are located immediately adjacent to the Project route, both of
which have been previously identified as prehistoric camp sites (Schieppati et al. 2008b).
These sites are discussed as being located along the Salmon River, likely representing the
remnants of towns as there were pieces of pottery found at the locations (Schieppati et al.
2008b). The remaining two sites are traces of occupation sites. As with Jefferson County,
no historic sites were identified within 1,500 ft of the APE in Oswego County (Schieppati et
al. 2008b).
Five prehistoric sites were identified within one mile of the Project route, but not adjacent,
including three camp sites, and two traces of occupation sites (Schieppati et al. 2008b).
Two historic sites were documented within one mile of the APE and were identified as early
to mid-nineteenth century foundations (Schieppati et al. 2008b). Archaeological sites located
inside the one through three-mile area on each side of the Project route included 12
prehistoric and 20 historic sites. The historic sites, which were primarily structural, are
located near the villages of Parish and Mexico, indicative of this areas industrial history
(Schieppati et al. 2008b).
4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Subaquatic Route
The subaquatic portion will run approximately 9 miles across the lakebed of Lake Ontario
from the Galloo Island northeastern shoreline to a parcel owned by Lake Ontario Cement
near Hovey Tract Road in Henderson, Jefferson County, New York. The Proposed Route is
depicted in Figure 2.1-1.
Shipwrecks are prone to occur in the area surrounding this portion of the Project (Schieppati
et al. 2008b). The Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation assessed the significance of
prehistoric and historic resources that are known to occur in the vicinity of the subaquatic
Project route. While NYSHPO has no records of shipwrecks within the subaquatic Project
route, there is information supporting the presence of 17 wrecks located in the vicinity
surrounding Galloo Island (Schieppati et al. 2008b). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. reviewed
numerous resources, including cultural resource management reports at NYSHPO, historic
shipwrecks databases (NOAA, Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System and a
review of existing literature regarding the area.
A remote sensing survey was conducted by Ocean Surveys Inc. in the Project corridor during
July and August 2008 and 31 magnetic anomalies were identified (Schieppati et al. 2008b).
None of these anomalies were identified as clusters, indicating the likely presence of a
shipwreck. It can be concluded that there are no submerged archaeological resources to be
concerned with in the subaquatic Project route (Schieppati et al. 2008b). Side-scan sonar
did not reveal any significant submerged prehistoric resources (Schieppati et al. 2008b).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 53

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Detailed methodology and results of these studies are described in the supplemental cultural
resources investigation report, which is included in Appendix I.
4.9.2 Historic Architecture Assessment
A file review was performed to identify known significant cultural resources within the six-mile
corridor and visual APE surrounding the Project route. Significant cultural resources include
National Historic Landmarks, properties (sites, structures, objects, buildings, and landscapes)
listed on, or properties determined to be eligible for, listing on the State and National Registers of
Historical Places (NRE). National Historic Landmarks are properties or objects that have been
determined by the U. S. Secretary of the Interior to be nationally significant in American history
and culture. National Historic Landmarks differ from properties listed in the National Register of
Historic Places in that properties listed on the National Register are primarily of state and local
significance while National Historic Landmarks are considered to be of exceptional value in
representing or illustrating an important theme in the history of the Nation.
4.9.2.1 Existing Conditions Upland Route
The search of the OPRHP inventory and of the National Register of Historic Places did not
identify any archaeological resources located adjacent to, or along the Project route in New
York. However, a total of 28 NRL structures and districts have been identified in the upland
portion on the mainland (26 within the study corridor and 2 abutting the corridor); one NRL
structure has been identified on Galloo Island (Schieppati et al. 2008a; 2008b). Of those
NRL properties in the upland portion on the mainland, two are in Jefferson County while 26
are located in Oswego County. There are also 27 NRE properties located within the six-mile
corridor surrounding the Project route, six in Jefferson County and 21 in Oswego County.
Four of these properties are Historic Districts; the remainder are categorized as individual
structures. See Table 4.1 in Appendix I for properties that exist within the six mile corridor
surrounding the Project route. A summary of the towns containing historic structures and
districts is below:

The Town of Hounsfield on Galloo Island has one NRL lighthouse within the study
corridor.

The Town of Henderson has one NRL stone building within the study corridor and 5 NRE
buildings.

The Town of Ellisburg contains one NRL historic district with five structures. There is
also one NRE district and one NRE structure within the town boundaries. Additionally,
the Village of Mannsville has two NRL historic districts and six individual NRE structures.

Sandy Creek has 13 NRL properties inside the six-mile survey corridor, including a
historic district with numerous commercial and residential structures.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 54

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The Town of Richland has one NRE historic district in its boundaries. The majority of
historic sites in this area fall in the NRL Village of Pulaski Historic District. There is also
one NRE building in the Village of Pulaski.

The Town of Mexico has five NRL properties and one NRL historic district within the sixmile survey corridor (farmsteads, residence). The Village of Mexico has two NRL
structures within the corridor and two structures abutting.

The Town of Parish has one NRL cemetery; the Village of Parish contains 10 individual
NRE structures within the survey corridor.

4.9.3 Effects and Mitigation, Area of Potential Effect


The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas that may be directly or indirectly impacted by
an undertaking. The APE for archaeological resources consists of any areas where grounddisturbing activities will occur. Determination of the APE needs to consider any areas of direct
construction impact including tower foundations, underground cable installations; as well as
temporary and permanent access roads; laydown areas; staging areas; areas where grading,
clearing, cutting, or filling will occur; or any other areas that a construction contractor may have
access to in association with a project. For historic aboveground properties that will not be
directly affected, the APE is defined as the area from which the Project is visible. The potential
effects of the Project are assessed as those that may cause alterations in the character or use of
historic properties that qualify the properties for inclusion in the National Register. This is
generally limited to the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the
integrity of the propertys significant features.
Project activities, both temporary and permanent, have the potential to impact cultural resources
during the construction and operation phases of the Project. Temporary and permanent project
facilities have the same potential of impacting archaeological deposits and will be assessed the
same.
4.9.3.1 Upland Route
Although cultural resources occur in the vicinity of the Projects upland route, all sensitive
areas have potential to be avoided through route or design adjustments.
The primary archaeological issue of concern is the location of significant archaeological
resources within the Projects APE. Significant resources are those that would be considered
NRE or that are NRL; generally these would be archaeological resources that maintain
integrity and that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history. Any area where ground-disturbing activities associated with construction or
operation of the Project may occur needs to be assessed for the presence of significant
archaeological resources. The presence or absence of archaeological resources within the
APE will be determined after Certification of the Route through field studies conducted during
preparation of the EM&CP.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 55

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Prehistoric Cultural Resources


The prehistoric archaeological sensitivity of the study area is based on the locations of
reported prehistoric sites in proximity to the Project route, as well as an analysis of
environmental factors, such as drainage, proximity to water, and topography. Areas
considered less sensitive include those that have been previously disturbed, are excessively
sloping or excessively wet. In general terms, there is a positive relationship between the
location of prehistoric sites and areas that are dry, level, and next to bodies of water and
water courses. Examples include lands near the confluence of a tributary with a larger
stream, lake inlets and outlets, rapids and falls along rivers, and variations along the
shoreline, such as points of land and embayments. Rock faces that could provide shelters
are considered sensitive as potential rockshelters and chert outcrops in limestone formations
are considered sensitive as potential quarries.
The likelihood of encountering a prehistoric resource along the upland Project route;
however, is low; prehistoric resources are more likely to be uncovered adjacent to mapdocumented structures, which have been previously recorded.
Historic Cultural Resources
The historic archaeological sensitivity of an area is generally based on the proximity to
historic properties or early road networks. Typically, developed areas have a greater potential
for historic archaeological sites than agricultural/rural areas. The potential for historic sites
increases with proximity to early road networks.
Based on the results of the site file search, and cursory examination of historical maps, the
Project route extends through areas of archaeological sensitivity. Factors that reduce the
sensitivity of specific areas include prior disturbance such as grading or cutting in rural areas
or along the existing railroad right-of way or numerous construction episodes in the urban
areas. Prior disturbance can be documented through examination of existing conditions,
construction or grading plans, and subsurface testing. Excessive slope and wetness also
diminish an areas archaeological potential. The examination of topographical maps shows
portions of the Project route, particularly those along existing electric or gas ROWs passing
through areas with varying topography, including many areas that appear to be excessively
sloping. These areas are likely to be considered less archaeologically sensitive than the more
level areas, although rock faces that could provide shelter are considered sensitive as are
chert outcrops.
There is a greater potential for above ground resources, particularly districts that are eligible
for the National Register, or that are already listed on the National Register, to be located in
urban areas or areas where the Project route comes in proximity to early road networks.
This is evident by the results of the file searches conducted for this survey. Once Project
design has been completed, a reconnaissance survey will be conducted to determine the
presence of unknown above-ground historic resources that may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places within the Projects viewshed.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 56

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The potential for impact to NRL or NRE properties is generally limited to the introduction of
visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the propertys
significant features. Potential visual impacts are most likely to occur in the vicinity of the
towers and overhead transmission lines and are not of concern along underground sections
of the Project route.
The potential for visual impact to these properties will be better determined during the
EM&CP phase. The potential for visual impact to representative properties is considered in
the visual assessment in Section 4.8 of this Exhibit and in Appendix O. Mitigation procedures
will need to be undertaken in consultation with OPRHP based on the final design of the line.
Within the six-mile corridor surrounding the Project route, there are a significant number of
historic cultural resources. The Project area is considered highly sensitive. Historic resources
will be further identified in the pending Phase 1B Architectural Field Investigation.
4.9.3.2 Subaquatic Route
The lack of submerged archaeological resources within the Projects subaquatic route will
reduce the potential for any impact to subaquatic cultural resources.
4.9.3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
In the design of the Project route, an effort was made to avoid areas deemed sensitive to
historic cultural resources, such as population centers. It is estimated that 15 linear miles of
the Project route would require shovel testing and 20 linear miles would require surface
testing. A standardized methodology for conducting a cultural resources survey including
field reconnaissance and recovery if necessary will be required prior to construction. Visual
inspection and field investigation can confirm prior disturbance and/or the presence/absence
of cultural resources within areas of proposed ground disturbance along the Project corridor.
As such, once the route is finalized, a Phase IB intensive field study will be conducted as part
of the EM&CP. The scope will be developed in consultation with the NYSHPO at OPRHP. If
necessary, additional investigations will be conducted on identified resources. Should any
Project structure be required to be located in or adjacent to a known significant
archaeological site, mitigation procedures will be developed in consultation with the OPRHP.
4.10 Natural Resources
This section describes the vegetation coverage, bird, fish and wildlife resources, and threatened and
endangered species within the vicinity of the subaquatic and upland portions of the Proposed Route
and the larger 2,400-foot wide proposed Project Study Area (Study Area). Due to the inherent
differences between proposed Project activities in subaquatic and upland environments, subaquatic
resources are described separately from upland resources when applicable. Within this structural
framework, existing conditions, potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as
appropriate, are presented for each natural resource. Descriptions of the Project locations are
presented in Exhibit 2 - Location of Facilities, and Exhibit 4.2 - Project Description.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 57

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.10.1 Subaquatic Biota and Habitat


4.10.1.1 Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario is the farthest downstream of the Laurentian Great Lakes and receives 80% of
its water from Lake Erie, through the Niagara River. The remainder of the water enters the
lake directly as precipitation or from the tributaries in its watershed. Approximately 93% of
the water leaves Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River, and the remainder is lost
through evaporation (LaMP 2006).
The eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario, specifically in the area south of Stony Point to the
mouth of the Salmon River, consists primarily of open shoreline wetlands and a barrier beach
complex with coarse, sandy shores backed by a series of coastal ponds (Stewart 2003). The
primarily rocky shoreline of Galloo Island transitions into two shoal areas at the Islands
northeastern and southwestern limits (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation [NYSDEC] 2002). As defined by the NYSDEC, Lake Ontarios nearshore zone
typically consists of waters that are less than 50 feet deep. In the areas northwest of Stony
Point and southeast of Galloo Island, the lakes bathymetry quickly descends into the area
defined by the NYSDEC as the offshore zone, or waters greater than 50 feet (NYSDEC
2008b).
The NYSDEC indicates the eastern Lake Ontario islands and their adjacent shoals provide
significant fish and wildlife habitat for a variety of colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds,
as well as spawning or nursery areas for a variety warmwater fishes. Little Galloo and Gull
Islands also support breeding colonies of several colonial nesting species (NYSDEC 2002).
Fish of recreational importance found within eastern Lake Ontario include smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), walleye (Sander vitreus), northern pike (Esox lucius), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), and a variety of stocked salmonids, which include the following
species: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), brown trout (Salmo trutta), steelhead
(Onchorhynchus mykiss), lake trout, Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch), and Atlantic
salmon (NYSDEC 2002; LaMP 2006).
4.10.1.2 Subaquatic Vegetation
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5, this section describes the vegetation
cover within the vicinity of the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route. Potential measures
to mitigate construction impacts on these resources are also described as appropriate. A
literature review was completed to provide existing conditions information on vegetation
conditions along this portion of the Proposed Route.
4.10.1.2.1 Existing Subaquatic Vegetation
Phytoplankton
The phytoplankton community in Lake Ontario appears to be in a state of flux, most likely in
response to top-down pressures from invasive species. One of the most of pervasive of

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 58

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

these invasive species is the quagga mussel, which is able to filter phytoplankton directly
from the water column in nearshore waters, sometimes at rates exceeding phytoplankton
replacement (Johannsson et al. 2007). As a result, some nearshore areas of Lake Ontario
have experienced a rise in water clarity and a corresponding decline in phytoplankton
densities.
Other top-down pressures may increase phytoplankton communities. For example, spiny
(Bythotrephes longimanus) and fishhook (Cercopagis spp.) water fleas prey on important
phytoplankton consumers such as Bosmina, Ceriodaphnia and other species of zooplankton.
This may serve to release offshore phytoplankton from grazing pressure, leading to an
increase in phytoplankton productivity. Researchers cite offshore increases in chlorophyll a
levels (an indication of phytoplankton productivity) and Cercopagis densities while
phosphorous levels have remained steady or fallen during the same time period as evidence
of this relationship (Johannsson et al. 2007; Makarewicz et al. 2001).
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) occurs in the nearshore areas of Lake Ontario. These
nearshore areas, termed the littoral zone, are shallow enough to allow sufficient sunlight to
support the growth of rooted plants. Vegetation within the littoral zone provides important
forage and cover habitat for the fish community within Lake Ontario. Typical submerged
aquatic vegetation that occurs in Lake Ontario includes muskgrass (Chara sp.), coontail
(Ceratophyllum demersum), naiad (Najas flexilis), quillwork (Isoetes sp.), water stargrass
(Heteranthera dubia), waterweed (Elodea canadensis), wild celery (Vallisneria Americana),
clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii), fern pondweed (Potamogeton robbinsii),
variable pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus) and whitestem pondweed (Potamogeton
praelongus) (Schloesser 1986).
In shallower areas immediately bordering the shoreline, emergent plants such as cattails
(Typha sp.), bulrushes (Scirpus sp.), sedges (Carex sp.) and rushes (Juncus sp.) are
dominant. Invasive aquatic and emergent plant species, including Eurasian milfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), flowering rush
(Butomus umbellatus) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) have been documented in
the Great Lakes (Great Lakes Information Network 2008). It is likely that some, if not all of
these species occur in eastern Lake Ontario. Determining the extent of any aquatic invasives
in the vicinity of the landfall location would require a field survey.
4.10.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts to Subaquatic Vegetation
The subaquatic cable will be installed using jet plow embedment as described in Exhibit E-3.
As further explained in Exhibit E-3, jet plow embedment methods for subaquatic cable
installations are considered the most effective and least environmentally damaging compared
to traditional mechanical dredging and trenching operations.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 59

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Impacts to the phytoplankton community from the construction and operation phases of the
proposed Project are expected to be negligible. Although increases in suspended sediments
due to cable installation could interfere with photosynthetic activity, such increases would
likely be localized and temporary (hours to days). Furthermore, as increases in suspended
sediment concentrations due to construction would be highest at points close to the lakebed,
phytoplankton within the photic zone (zone of greatest light penetration) would generally be
above the zone of impact, especially in deeper waters.
Subaquatic vegetation within the littoral zone that falls within the path of the jet plow
installation route will be lost during construction. The installation, removal and backfill of the
cofferdam which will be used at the subaquatic to upland transition, may also lead to the loss
of beds of subaquatic vegetation. The transition to the subaquatic cable configuration is
anticipated to utilize horizontal directional drilling (HDD) technology to bore underneath the
nearshore-shore environment and to install the cable below the nearshore area where winter
ice scour could affect the cable.
Subaquatic vegetation adjacent to the jet plow route and transition station work area may be
temporarily impacted during the time period in which there is an increase in suspended
sediment within the water column. Some beds of subaquatic vegetation may also become
partially buried in sediment which may stress some of the plants.
Upon completion of construction, subaquatic vegetation should recolonize areas where it was
lost or temporarily impacted. The relatively small area of subaquatic vegetation which will be
impacted when compared to the area of subaquatic vegetation within the larger Lake Ontario
littoral zone will minimize the risk of any lasting negative impacts on subaquatic vegetation.
4.10.1.2.3 Mitigation for Impacts to Subaquatic Vegetation
As impacts to the phytoplankton community are expected to be negligible, no mitigation is
planned for these resources. If however, upon further investigation, the subaquatic cable is
determined to be routed through sensitive beds of subaquatic vegetation, the use of turbidity
curtains to limit the spread of suspended solids may be considered.
4.10.1.3 Fish
This section generally describes the existing aquatic species and habitats located within the
U.S. waters of Lake Ontario, New York. The information presented in this section was
obtained from existing published sources.
4.10.1.3.1 Existing Fish Community
Lake Ontarios shoal areas and nearshore zone provide important habitat for fish in the
spawning and juvenile life stages. Fish that are characteristic of this zone include: walleye
(Sander vitreus), small and largemouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu and M. salmoides,
respectively), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), white perch (Morone americana), gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), northern pike (Esox lucius), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus),

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 60

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis megalotis), and several


species of sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) and cyprinid minnows (NYSDEC 2008b; LaMP 2006;
NYSDOS 2004a). The nearshore zone historically supported a healthy population of
American eels (Anguilla rostrata), which have been in decline since the 1990s (LaMP 2006;
Mills et al. 2005).
Historically abundant native fish species in the offshore zone included Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar), cisco (Coregonus spp.), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), burbot (Lota lota),
deepwater sculpin (Myoxocephalus thompsoni), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) (LaMP
2006). Throughout the 20th century numerous stressors such as overfishing, the colonization
of nonnative species, degradation of water quality, and loss or change of habitat have led to
the dramatic decline of these historic native species (Mills et al. 2005). The introduction of
invasive predatory zooplankters, including the spiny water flea (Bythotrephes longimanus)
and, more recently, the fishhook water flea (Cercopagis pengoi) may place additional
pressure on the early life stages of certain lake fishes by competing with them for food.
Fish that are currently characteristic of Lake Ontarios offshore zone include alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), lake herring (Coregonus artedii), and a
variety of stocked salmonids including: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),
rainbow trout (O. mykiss), lake trout, Coho salmon (O. kisutch), and brown trout (Salmo
trutta) (NYSDEC 2008b; LaMP 2006). Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), threespine
stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and burbot (Lota lota) are also found in lesser numbers
in the offshore zone (LaMP 2006; Owens and Dittman 2003).
Deepwater sculpin
(Myoxocephalus thompsoni), historically common in Lake Ontario, was recently rediscovered
following several years of presumed extirpation. However, it has only been found in a few
locations and is not considered to be widespread or common in Lake Ontario.
Other common fish species that may be found in the vicinity of the subaquatic portion of the
Proposed Route include sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), longnose gar (Lepisosteus
osseus), bowfin (Amia calva), goldfish (Carassius auratus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), freshwater
drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
4.10.1.3.2 Environmental Impacts to Fish
Some minor and short term environmental impacts to aquatic resources and habitats within
eastern Lake Ontario would be expected to result from subaquatic sediment disturbance
during cable installation. Direct impacts to the twelve existing protected areas and habitats
within eastern Lake Ontario (see below) will be avoided to the extent practicable; however,
in these areas, any impacts that would result from the subaquatic cable installation would be
temporary (i.e., occur during construction only, and would not be sustained during the
Projects operation phase).
Potential impacts to fish from installation of the subaquatic cable are anticipated to be
localized, temporary, and short term resulting from direct or indirect sediment disturbance.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 61

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

These impacts may result from localized fish displacement or mortality (primarily for early life
stages), temporary elevated suspended sediment concentrations, and the potential for
contaminant bioaccumulation from suspension of contaminated sediments.
The subaquatic cable will be buried using low impact jet plowing, which will help to limit the
amount of disturbance to lacustrine sediments and benthic fauna. Fish located within and in
the vicinity of the Project area during the subaquatic cable installation may be exposed to
short term turbidity generated from the hydraulic jet plow operation. However, lasting
impacts to individuals, in mobile life stages, are expected to be negligible due to the short
term and localized nature of the sediment suspended during construction and installation and
the avoidance behavior of fish during active cable installation. A more detailed discussion of
the jet plow installation is provided in Exhibit E-3 and Exhibit 4, Section 4.4.2.
In addition, impacts to the fish that utilize habitats near the landfalls are expected to be low
since the Project will be utilizing HDD techniques to install the subaquatic cable along the
Galloo Island shoreline and the mainland shoreline in Henderson. This disturbance
represents a minimal impact to available fish habitat in Lake Ontario, and therefore is not
expected to have an appreciable impact on fish species. Potential impacts to fish from HDD
operation include temporary increases in suspended sediment concentrations and possible
indirect impacts to aquatic resources from bentonite (drilling fluid) release.
As some areas of Lake Ontario have a bedrock lake bottom, it is possible that either
mechanical rock removal (i.e., trenching) or blasting could be required for cable installation if
a route around hard bottom areas cannot be identified. If the contractor identifies areas
where blasting will be required, detailed plans and specifications will be included in the
Projects EM&CP (Appendix D). Alternatively, cable may be installed directly on bedrock and
secured with concrete mattresses for portions of the subaquatic Project route. Installation of
concrete mattresses is expected to have a negligible impact on fish, as the underlying
substrate (bedrock) already provides hard bottom habitat.
The subaquatic cable is not expected to have an adverse impact to fish resources during the
operation phase. The buried subaquatic cable does not create a physical barrier that could
interfere with fish migration or use of existing habitats or nursery areas.
As described in Exhibit E-1, Electrical Systems Description, an extruded dielectric cable, with
insulation consisting of cross linked polyethylene; a metallic shield and moisture impervious
sheath and jacket insulation, is the cable of choice for this Project. Among its advantages as
compared to other systems are: excellent failure history; lack of dielectric fluid and
pressurization plant; higher current ratings and most important of them all it is the least
complex system. A fiber optic cable will also be bundled with the electric cables.
As further described in Exhibit E-1, the subaquatic cable will be jetted (buried) into the lake
bottom to a target depth of 6 feet below the present bottom except in areas where existing
cables are crossed or where geologic or topographic features prevent burial to the planned
minimum target burial depth. These burial criteria effectively eliminate potential mechanical
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 62

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

damage or failure by anchor penetration. Subaquatic cable design, installation, and


operational measures have been incorporated to minimize potential mechanical damage for
environmental protection (see Exhibit E-1 for complete description).
No adverse effects on aquatic life are expected from EMF or magnetic fields generated by the
cable system. Refer to Section 4.17 for more details.
4.10.1.3.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Fish
Several measures would be implemented to minimize the impact of the Project on fish. At
the landfalls, HDD techniques can be used to minimize impacts related to sediment
displacement and suspended sediments. Installation of a coffer dam at the landfalls will
reduce the area of impact for any increases in suspended sediment concentrations. To
address the possibility of bentonite release during HDD operations, a bentonite release plan
would be developed as part of the Projects EM&CP.
Additionally, jet plow embedment techniques would be used to install the majority of the
cable system between landfalls. Compared with traditional mechanical dredging approaches,
jet plow embedment reduces the extent and duration of impact. Environmental impacts from
jet plow embedment have also been minimized by choosing the shortest feasible crossing
within Lake Ontario.
Upstate will also consult with NYSDEC and USFWS regarding the need for possible
construction impacts to resident fish populations, in-water construction work in these
waterbodies will follow time of year restrictions, as set by NYSDEC.
4.10.1.4 Benthos
This section provides an overview of the existing benthic aquatic species and habitats located
within the U.S. waters of eastern Lake Ontario, New York. The information presented in this
section was obtained from existing published sources, as well as from a September 2008 preconstruction survey along the subaquatic Project route.
Potential impacts to benthic organisms and their habitats that may occur from construction
and operation of the Project are identified and assessed.
4.10.1.4.1 Existing Benthic Community
Benthic invertebrates are an important link between the trophic levels of Lake Ontarios food
web (Mills et al. 2005). Historic native invertebrate species included a variety of mollusks
such as unionid freshwater clams, fingernail clams (Sphaerium spp.), gastropods, opossum
shrimp (Mysis relicta), non-biting midges (Chironomidae) and the amphipod Diporeia hoyi
(LaMP 2006).
In general, the benthos of eastern Lake Ontario has been heavily impacted by invasive exotic
species. Since the introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in 1989, and its
out-competition by the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), which began to appear in 1991,
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 63

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

the nearshore zone has been substantially altered. Overall biomass of non-dreissenid
macroinvertebrates in much of eastern Lake Ontario has steadily decreased since the 1980s
(Johannsson et al. 2007). By 1997, Diporeia, which was a major food source in Lake
Ontarios food web, no longer existed in water less than 100 feet deep (NYSDEC 2008b;
LaMP 2006). The widespread decline in Diporeia largely coincided with the spread of
invasive mussels, probably due to direct competition for food by filter-feeding zebra and
quagga mussels (NYSDEC 2007).
Invertebrates that are currently characteristic of Lake Ontarios nearshore benthic
environment include: quagga mussels, oligochaete worms, the amphipod Gammarus
fasciatus, the exotic amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus (LaMP 2006), and the exotic New
Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) (Mills et al. 2005). Invertebrates that are
currently characteristic of Lake Ontarios offshore benthic environment include: oligochaete
worms, fingernail clams, quagga mussels, mysid (opossum) shrimp, and several species of
deepwater zooplankton (LaMP 2006; Mills et al. 2005; NYSDEC 2008b). Diporeia amphipods
may still be present in some locations greater than 425 feet (130 meters) deep but are
largely absent from shallower regions of Lake Ontario (NYSDEC 2007).
The benthic community assessment (Appendix R) of the subaquatic portion of the Proposed
Route was conducted on September 20 2008. Eight stations along the Proposed Route were
sampled using a Shipek dredge with a sample area of 0.04 m2. The top two cm of each
sample were removed gently washed through a sieve bucket with 0.5 mm mesh. Remaining
material was carefully backwashed and preserved in a sealed jar containing 95% ethyl
alcohol. Samples were transported to the lab for sub-sampling and analysis using the
methods outlined in Appendix R.
The benthic community assessment revealed a benthic fauna largely disturbed by exotic
invasive species, principally the quagga mussel. Oligochaete worms and chironomid midges
were also found, occasionally in significant numbers. However, once abundant taxa,
including Diporeia, were not identified from any of the samples. Although no intact native
freshwater clams or mussels were found in the benthic samples, recently spent shells of
eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) were found at one station near the mainland landfall in
the Town of Henderson.
Diversity of the benthic fauna was low (averaging two distinct taxa per station) across the
Study Area and each of the eight sample stations was dominated by a single taxonomic
group. Quagga mussels were dominant at two stations near the middle of the proposed
subaquatic Project route. Nematode worms were present at just one station but dominated
the benthic macroinvertebrate community sampled at that station. Tubificid worms were
dominant at the remainder of the sample stations. Dominance is an important indication of
external impacts on a site, as a community dominated by few species would indicate
environmental stress (Plafkin et al. 1989) and a high percent contribution by a single taxon
generally indicates community imbalance (Bode 1988).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 64

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Benthic faunal densities averaged close to 3,000 individuals/square meter (m2) but varied
widely between stations. However, density did not appear to be related to depth, substrate
type, or presence of exotic dreissenid mussels. Faunal density may serve as an indicator of
external impacts on a site because the density of standing crops (numbers or biomass) of
benthic organisms may increase or decrease according to the type of stress and the
tolerance of the study species (Resh and Grodhaus 1983).
4.10.1.4.2 Environmental Impacts to the Benthic Community
Potential impacts to the benthic community from installation of the subaquatic cable may be
direct or indirect. Direct impacts include injury or mortality from abrasion and entrainment
as well as direct displacement. Indirect impacts include reduced growth or reproductive
success due to an increase in suspended sediments or subsequent burial from sediment
deposition.
Direct impacts are expected to be limited to the path of the jet plow during subaquatic cable
burial. The width of the lake bed contact from the jet plow is approximately 10 feet. Of this,
the pontoons (or skids) are each approximately four feet wide, and the stinger is
approximately two feet wide. Macroinvertebrates that come into direct contact with the
operating jet plow are likely to be injured or killed through abrasion as the subaquatic cable
is installed.
As detailed in Section 4.11.3.3 above, sediment accumulation due to subaquatic cable
installation will be temporary and minimal (equal or less than 1 mm). Therefore, indirect
impacts along the Proposed Route are expected to be negligible. An increase in suspended
sediment concentrations has the potential to disturb more sensitive taxa within the benthic
community. However, it may also temporarily increase food availability for taxa that filter
food from the water column. Given the limited spatial and temporal extent of increased
suspended sediment concentrations, impacts are expected to be negligible. It is likely that
quagga mussels, which are sessile and immobile once settled, will experience the greatest
impact from deposition of suspended sediments. However, oligochaete worms, chironomid
larvae and other motile organisms are expected to be more tolerant of burial. Therefore, the
impact to these organisms is anticipated to be negligible.
Benthic organisms displaced or killed as a result of the subaquatic cable installation will likely
be replaced as the area is colonized by propagules from the extensive areas of undisturbed
substrate adjacent to the subaquatic Project route.
Operation of the subaquatic cable is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the benthic
community.
4.10.1.4.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to the Benthic Community
The indirect impacts of sediment suspension and deposition will be reduced through the use
of a towed jet plow for cable installation in most of the subaquatic portion of the Proposed
Route. The jet plow disturbs only a narrow area of sediments and minimizes sediment
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 65

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

resuspension. HDD will be used at the landfalls and is expected to minimize disruption to the
benthic community as the transmission cable transitions from subaquatic to underground.
4.10.1.5 Protected Aquatic Species and Habitats
This section describes the protected species and habitats associated with the Project area.
Information included in this section is based on existing published sources, literature review,
and agency consultation. Potential impacts to protected species and their habitats that may
occur from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project are identified and
assessed. Because the assessment concludes that there will be no significant impact to
aquatic protected species, no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.10.1.5.1 Existing Protected Aquatic Species and Habitats
The NYSDOS Coastal Management Program has not designated any portion of the subaquatic
route as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The fundamental purpose of the
Significant Coastal Habitats Program is to preserve the viability of the designated habitats. A
habitat is considered significant if it is essential to the survival of a large portion of a
particular fish or wildlife population; supports a population of species which are endangered,
threatened, or of special concern; supports a population having significant commercial,
recreational, or educational value; and exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly
found within the state or in the coastal region. According to NYSDOS Coastal Management
Program Policy #7, Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat must be protected,
preserved and where practical restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats (NYSDOS
2001).
4.10.1.5.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species USFWS
No federally threatened or endangered aquatic species are expected to occur in the
immediate vicinity of the Proposed Route.
4.10.1.5.1.2 NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program
There are no species of special concern known to currently inhabit waters near the Proposed
Subaquatic Project route. No threatened or endangered fishes are expected to occur in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed subaquatic Project route.
4.10.1.5.2 Environmental Impacts to Protected Aquatic Species and Habitats
No impacts to protected aquatic species are anticipated from the proposed Project.
4.10.1.5.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Protected Aquatic Species and
Habitats
Because, no impacts to protected aquatic species are anticipated from the proposed Project,
no mitigation is proposed at this time.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 66

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.10.2 Upland Biota and Habitat


This section generally describes the terrestrial ecological communities in the Project vicinity on
Galloo Island, the landfall on the northern shore of Lake Ontario and along the Proposed Route.
The existing vegetation, wildlife and aquatic resources, a summary of potential impacts to these
resources and mitigation measures are described in the following sections.
4.10.2.1 Upland Vegetation Communities
A variety of upland and wetland vegetation occurs within the upland portion of the Proposed
Route. A general description of the typical plant communities, potential impacts to these
communities and measures to mitigate for any impacts on these resources as a result of
construction, operation and maintenance are described in the following sections.
4.10.2.1.1 Existing Upland Vegetation Communities
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5, this section describes the vegetation
cover within the vicinity of the upland portions of the Proposed Route, starting at Galloo
Island.
4.10.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial Vegetation
Galloo Island is approximately 4.0 miles long, 1.0 mile wide, and is largely undeveloped. The
National Land Cover dataset, which was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from
Landsat Satellite Thematic Mapper imagery (circa 1992), was reviewed to determine existing
terrestrial ecological communities on Galloo Island (USGS 1992). Dominant vegetative
communities are deciduous forest and pasture land. The island also contains smaller areas of
mixed forest, woody wetlands, emergent wetlands, and cultivated land.
Two small parcels on either end of Galloo Island are part of the Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife
Management Area. These parcels include the Lighthouse Parcel and Coast Guard Station
parcel, which have a combined area of 20 acres (NYSDEC 2002). Detailed vegetative surveys
have not yet been conducted at these parcels. According to the NYSDEC Management Plan,
there are no known threatened or endangered plant species that occur on Galloo Island
(NYSDEC 2002).
After leaving Galloo Island, the cable does not pass through terrestrial vegetation again until
it reaches the landfall in Henderson, New York on the eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario. The
shoreline in this area includes sand beaches, inland sand dunes, and wetlands which provide
habitat for a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and passerines (LaMP 2006). Forest
habitat is generally fragmented near the lake but includes stands of oak, ash, white cedar,
and hickory. Deciduous and mixed forest is the predominant land cover in the area with low
levels of human development (USGS 1992).
Several existing factors currently impact the terrestrial ecological communities along the
eastern Lake Ontario shoreline. Since the 1960s the lake level has been controlled by a
series of dams on the Saint Lawrence River (LaMP 2006). The water level control is believed
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 67

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

to have had an impact on shoreline communities. Sand transport mechanisms have been
altered which affect the beaches, dunes, and shoreline marshes. Other threats to terrestrial
ecosystems include the introduction of exotic, invasive species and shoreline development.
Invasive species such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), pale swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum rossicum), garlic mustard (Alliaria
petiolata), water chestnut (Trapa natans), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), and
common reed (Phragmites australis) have been documented in some of the significant
natural communities along the eastern shoreline (NYSDEC 2008).
The composition of the terrestrial vegetative communities changes as the Proposed Route
moves inland away from the eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario. Based on a desktop GIS
analysis and a review of orthophotos along the route, deciduous forest comprises
approximately 26% of the Study Area, mixed forest covers 4% and evergreen forest 7%
(Table 4.10.2-1). Remaining vegetative communities include active and abandoned
agricultural fields, pasture, row crops and wetlands.
Based on the orthophoto review, large portions of the route appear to pass through old
successional fields. According to the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NYSNHP),
these fields are characterized by forbs and grasses that occur on former agricultural lands
that are now abandoned. Characteristic species include goldenrods (Solidago sp.)
bluegrasses (Poa pratensis; poa compressa), timothy (Phleum pratense), quackgrass
(Agropyron repens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum
odoratum), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), common chickweed (Cerastium arvense),
common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), oldfield cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex), calico
aster (Aster lateriflorus), New England aster (Aster novae-angliae), wild strawberry (Fragaria
virginiana), Queen-Anne's lace (Daucus corota), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
hawkweeds (Hieracium sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and ox-tongue (Picris
hieracioides) (Edinger et al. 2002).
Characteristic shrubs include gray dogwood (Cornus foemina sp. racemosa), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), raspberries (Rubus sp.), sumac
(Rhus typhina, R. glabra), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
At a regional scale, dominant forest cover along the Proposed Route is comprised primarily of
eastern transitional and mixed deciduous forest. The broad forest cover types along the route
include maple-beech-birch and elm-ash-red maple associations (Kingsley 1985). At a finer
scale, species found within the beech-maple mesic forest, maple-basswood rich mesic forest
and pine-northern hardwood forest as described by the NYSNHP (Edinger et al. 2002)
provide a general characterization of the typical vegetation that most likely occurs within the
forested portions of the route.
According to the NYSNHP, the beech-maple mesic forest occurs on well-drained, usually
acidic soils. The NYSNHPs element ranks the beech-maple forest as apparently secure.
Characteristic tree species in this broadly defined community include sugar maple (Acer

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 68

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) white
ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and eastern hop hornbeam (Ostrya
virginiania). A sparse shrub layer is usually comprised of hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana) and alternate-leaved dogwood (Cornus alternifolia). Dominant
groundcover includes starflower (Trientalis borealis), common wood-sorrel (Oxalis montana),
Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), painted trillium (Trillium undulatum), purple
trillium (T. erectum) and shining clubmoss (Lycopodium lucidulum). Certain introduced
species are commonly found in disturbed areas of the forest which include black locust
(Robinia pseudo-acacia), tree-of-heavan (Ailanthus altissima), and common buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica).
The maple-basswood, rich mesic forest occurs primarily in the Great Lakes plain on moist,
well-drained, moist soils of circumneutral pH and includes many of the same species as the
beech-maple forest (Edinger et al. 2002). This community is also ranked apparently secure
according to the NYSNHP. Common associate tree species include sugar maple, basswood
(Tilia americana) white ash, eastern hop hornbeam, ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), yellow
birch, red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech, hickories (Carya sp.) tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), butternut (Juglans cinerea) and American hornbeam.
The subcanopy and shrub layer is usually comprised of mountain maple (Acer spicatum)
witch hazel, and alternate-leaved dogwood. The herbaceous groundcover layer is more
densely vegetated than the beech-maple forest. Some of the common herbaceous species
include trout lily (Erythronium americanum), squirrel-corn (Dicentra canadensis), spring
beauty (Claytonia virginica) maidens hair fern (Adiantum pedatum), glade fern (Athyrium
pyncnocarpon) early meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum), false Solomons seal (Smilacina
racemosa) and bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis).
The pine-northern hardwood forest occurs primarily on gravelly outwash plains, delta sands
and eskers. Dominant tree species include white pine (Pinus strobus), red pine (Pinus
resinosa) with scattered paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and quaking aspen (Populus
tremuloides) in the canopy. Common shrub species include blueberries (Vaccinium
angustifolia) sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), wild raisin (Viburnum caissinoides) and
shadbush (Amelanchier canadensis). The herbaceous layer is usually comprised of bracken
fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), trailing arbutus (Epigaea
repens), cow wheat (Melampyrum lineare), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense),
bunchberry (Cornus canadensis) and starflower (Trientalis borealis). This community is
ranked as apparently secure according to the NYSNHP.
4.10.2.1.1.2 Wetland Vegetation
The NWI data uses the Cowardin wetland classification system to describe wetland
vegetation and hydrology (Cowardin et al. 1979). The NWI data was reviewed to compile
general information on the typical plant communities found within wetlands that occur in the

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 69

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Study Area. Based on a desktop GIS review of NWI data, a mix of forested, scrub-shrub,
emergent and unconsolidated bottom wetlands occur within the Study Area.
According to the review, 31% of the wetlands within the Study Area are forested. Of these
forested wetlands, the majority (74%) are vegetated with broadleaf, deciduous tree species
with seasonally flooded to temporarily flooded hydroperiods. These wetlands are generally
saturated at the surface during the early part of the growing season and have a water table
close to the surface throughout the year. Typical tree species that occur in this wetland type
include red maple (Acer rubrum) silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana) and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) (Edinger et
al. 2002). Approximately 47% of the broadleaf, deciduous forested wetlands within the Study
Area also have a scrub-shrub vegetative component, with specific species described below.
The remainder of the forested wetlands (26%) are vegetated with a mix of deciduous and
coniferous tree species. The most likely coniferous tree species that are co-dominant in the
mixed, forested wetlands include spruce (Picea sp.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea).
Approximately 43% of the wetlands within the Study Area are classified as scrub-shrub or
scrub-shrub/emergent wetlands. These scrub-shrub wetlands are vegetated with broadleaf,
deciduous species and are seasonally to temporarily flooded. In most cases, the water table
is near the surface most of the year with the greatest saturation and flooding during the
early portion of the growing season. Some of the typical species which most likely occur in
these wetlands include winterberry (Ilex verticillata), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
alders (Alnus incana spp. rugosa and A. serrulata), spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and
dogwoods (Cornus amomum, C. stolonifera, and C. racemosa) (Edinger et al. 2002).
Approximately 13% of the wetlands within the Study Area are classified as emergent
wetlands. These seasonally to temporarily flooded wetlands have a high groundwater table
throughout the year and generally experience longer periods of surface saturation and
flooding than the forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. Emergent wetlands contain a variety of
grasslike plants such as cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), saw grass (Cladium
jamaicense), sedges (Carex spp.); and true grasses such as common reed (Phragmites
australis), manna grasses (Glyceria spp.), slough grass (Beckmannia syzigachne), and
whitetop (Scolochloa festucacea). They may also contain a mix of broad-leaved persistent
emergents such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), dock (Rumex mexicanus),
waterwillow (Decodon verticillatus), and many species of smartweeds (Polygonum)
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
The remainder (13%) of the palustrine wetlands within the Study Area are classified as either
unconsolidated bottom, riverine or lacustrine wetlands according to the desktop review. The
unconsolidated bottom wetlands are all either permanently flooded or semi-permanently
flooded and are typically small ponds or sparsely vegetated, flooded, depressions. Some of
these wetlands may provide potential vernal pool habitat for amphibian species.
Unconsolidated bottom wetlands by definition contain less than 30% vegetative cover;
accordingly, the classification system does not provide data on specific plant species that

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 70

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

occur in these wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). All other wetlands within the Study Area are
classified as either lacustrine (lake) or riverine and do not have associated data on typical
vegetation.
4.10.2.1.2 Environmental Impacts to Upland Vegetation
The following sections describe vegetation clearing requirements and impacts within the
upland portion of the Proposed Route.
4.10.2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Vegetation
Impacts to terrestrial vegetation will occur during ROW clearing and access road
construction. Approximately 360 acres of forested vegetation will be cleared within the
upland portion of the Proposed Route. The remainder (approximately 398 acres) is not
currently forested but may be temporarily cleared of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, as
necessary, during Project construction. Additional vegetation may be cleared outside the
ROW for the construction of temporary laydown areas, staging areas and access roads. The
vegetation within structure foundation areas will be permanently lost. For typical pole
foundations, excavations of 5 feet diameter or 20 square feet would be required. This results
in less than 10,000 square feet of permanent vegetation loss for all 386 poles utilized for the
Project.
Cleared areas within the ROW will be allowed to partially revegetate following construction.
Although there will be some regrowth of vegetation, the ROW will be maintained as an early
successional, meadow and shrub community. The ROW maintenance will also require that
danger trees be trimmed or selectively removed as necessary to meet transmission line
clearance requirements as outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). The
disturbance associated with vegetation clearing and construction may provide invasive
species the opportunity to colonize this newly available habitat. There is potential for the
vegetative community to shift from one in which native species are dominant, to one in
which invasives are dominant.
4.10.2.1.2.2 Wetland Vegetation
Wetland vegetation will be impacted during ROW clearing and access road construction. The
vegetation within approximately 19.86 acres of NWI wetlands and 8.81 acres of NYSDEC
regulated wetlands which fall within the ROW may be cleared depending on the height of the
vegetation. A portion of the acreage of the NWI and NYSDEC regulated wetlands overlap.
Trees within forested wetlands within the ROW will be removed, while herbaceous and shrub
vegetation within emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands will be cleared as needed. Structures
placed within wetlands will permanently impact approximately 20 to 40 square feet of
vegetation for the foundation placement. The construction of any access roads which require
wetland crossings will result in additional impacts to wetland vegetation.
Herbaceous and shrub species will be allowed to partially revegetate portions of the ROW
after construction. Any cleared forested wetlands will be converted into early successional,

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 71

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

scrub-shrub communities. If the hydrology of cleared areas remains unchanged following


construction, a wetland community will continue to occur though the dominant vegetation
will change. The maintenance of the ROW will require trimming or selective removal of larger
vegetation in order to meet clearance requirements from the transmission line as outlined in
the Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix E). The disturbance to wetlands from clearing
and construction may allow invasive plant species which can tolerate wet conditions the
opportunity to colonize the newly available habitat. Species such as common reed
(Phragmites australis), multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria) are able capable of colonizing disturbed wetland habitats.
4.10.2.1.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Upland Vegetation
Many of the potential impacts to terrestrial and wetland vegetation may be minimized or
avoided through the use of mitigation measures. At the broadest level, the route has been
selected to parallel existing facilities and ROWs to minimize the amount of clearing
necessary. More specific mitigation measures which will be taken to minimize impacts to
vegetation are outlined in the following sections.
4.10.2.1.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation
Vegetation clearing will be minimized when possible. Herbaceous and shrub vegetation may
be maintained near sensitive areas to serve as a buffer along streambanks, steep slopes, and
near any public water supplies.
Before work begins, erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fences and/or hay
bales will placed between wetland boundaries and construction areas. These erosion control
measures will be periodically inspected and maintained to ensure they function properly.
Erosion controls will also be used to define the limit of the work area and protect adjacent
vegetation from the indirect impacts from sedimentation.
Upon the completion of work, disturbed areas will be restored to original grade and seeded
with a native seed mix. The quick re-establishment of native vegetation will help reduce the
likelihood of invasive plant species colonizing cleared areas.
4.10.2.1.3.2 Wetland Vegetation
Vegetation clearing within wetlands will be minimized when possible. Vegetation may be
maintained in sensitive areas along streambanks to create a buffer zone between work areas
and adjacent aquatic resources. Work within wetland areas will be scheduled to avoid those
times when groundwater levels are highest during the spring thaw and early part of the
growing season. There will be no permanent access roads routed through wetland areas,
though some temporary access roads may be necessary. The type and location of any access
road will be detailed in the EM&CP.
During final design, efforts will be made to locate structures outside of wetlands. When there
is no alternative location available and a structure must be placed within a wetland area,

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 72

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

access will be evaluated and selected based on the route with the least impact. Depending
on site conditions geotextile fabric or swamp mats which distribute the weight of construction
equipment may be used to minimize impacts to vegetation when accessing structure
locations. Any native vegetation within wetlands that requires clearing will be cut just above
ground level to allow regeneration from the roots. If invasive species are present, the roots
as well as all stems, leaves and seeds will be removed. Cut vegetation will be removed and
disposed of at an appropriate upland location.
Before work begins, erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fences and/or hay
bales will placed between wetland boundaries and construction areas. These erosion control
measures will be periodically inspected and maintained to ensure they function properly.
Erosion controls will also be used to define the limit of the work area and protect adjacent
vegetation from sedimentation.
Upon completion of work, disturbed soil and vegetation will be restored. The grade will be
returned to original contours and seeded with a wetland seed mix or planted if necessary.
The quick re-establishment of native vegetation through seeding and plantings should
minimize the opportunity for invasive species to colonize disturbed wetland areas.
4.10.2.2 Birds, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5, this section describes the existing
bird, wildlife and aquatic resources present in the upland portion of the Proposed Route on
Galloo Island and the mainland. Potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats that may
occur from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project are identified and
assessed. Measures which will be taken to mitigate any potential impacts during Project
construction and operation are also discussed.
4.10.2.2.1 Existing Bird, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources
This section describes birds, wildlife and aquatic resources which occur within the upland
portions of the Proposed Route. Information included in this section is based on existing
published sources, literature review, review of aerial photography to assess wildlife habitat,
and agency consultation.
4.10.2.2.1.1 Birds
Eastern Lake Ontarios islands and shoals serve as important habitat and feeding grounds for
a variety of colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds (NYSDEC 2008c). Little Galloo
Island is a large colonial waterbird rookery and contains one of North Americas largest
nesting populations of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), and New Yorks only Caspian
tern (Sterna caspia) colony (NYSDOS 2004a; NYSDEC 2008c; NYSDEC 2002). It is also
designated as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society. Two holdings on
Galloo Island are part of the Lake Ontario Islands Bird Conservation Area (NYSDEC 2008c).
However, unlike Little Galloo Island, Galloo Island is not designated an Important Bird Area.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 73

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Several rare or threatened birds are supported by the ecological communities found along
the eastern Lake Ontario shoreline. Some of these breeding birds include the least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), and
the black tern (Chlidonias niger) (NYSDEC 2008c). Avian species which stage or forage in the
area include the common tern, Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), American black duck (Anas
rubripes), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), common
goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), and common merganser (Charadrius melodius). The
federally endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodius) was documented in the area in
1984, and much of the shoreline serves as viable nesting habitat.
The following species are commonly found among the islands of eastern Lake Ontario:
herring gull (Larus argentatus), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), and black-crowned
night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) (NYSDEC 2008c; NYSDEC 2002). Waterfowl species and
shorebirds including scaup (Aythya sp.), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), grebe, and
American black duck (Anas rubripes) often occur in the area during fall migration (NYSDOS
2004b). Additionally, during spring and fall migrations the following species have been
documented to use Stony Island as a migration stopover: American black duck, mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos), scaup, common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), long-tailed duck
(formerly known as oldsquaw) (Clangula hyemalis), loons, grebes, mergansers, and Canada
goose (Branta Canadensis) (NYSDOS 2004c). Stony Island is also used by wintering
waterfowl, and is a resting site for migrating raptors (NYSDOS 2004c). Refer to the following
section for a listing of eastern Lake Ontarios protected areas and habitats.
The New York State Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA) was reviewed to create a list of species whose
breeding distribution occurs within the subaquatic and upland portions of the Study Area
(Table 4.10.2-2). The BBA, which was last updated in 2007, contains records of bird sightings
collected from surveys of 5,333 survey blocks (3 mile x 3 mile blocks) across the entire state
of New York.
According to the BBA, 149 different breeding bird species, from 41 different avian families
have been observed near or within the Study Area (Table 4.10.2-2). These species include 17
Game species, 112 that are Protected Wildlife under New York State Law (defined in
Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103) as well as 11 Special Concern species, five
Threatened species and one Endangered species which are protected under federal and/or
New York State law (U.S. Department of Interior, Code of the Federal Regulations 50 CFR
17.11; New York State Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0535). For more
information on endangered and threatened avian species within the Proposed Route, see
Section 4.10.2.3.1.2. The species list includes those that are typically found on larger bodies
of water and coastal areas as well as early successional and forest interior species.
Some of the more common species that are likely to occur along the upland portion of the
route include Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura), Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis), Field Sparrow

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 74

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

(Spizella pusilla), Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta


carolinensis) and Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus). Introduced species such as Rock Pigeon
(Columba livia), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), and European Starling (Sturnus
vulgaris) are likely to be abundant year-round in developed upland areas.
Several avian species are expected to occur primarily over the subaquatic portion of the route
in Lake Ontario. These species include the Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), Herring Gull (Larus argentatus), Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis), Great
Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus), Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia), Double-crested Cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus) and Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia).
Grassland Birds
Relatively few obligate grassland avian species are anticipated to breed in the vicinity of the
Proposed Route (Table 4.10.2-2). The obligate grassland species that may be present
include Upland Sandpiper, Sedge Wren, Horned Lark, Grasshopper, Savannah, and Vesper
Sparrows, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark (NYSDEC 2008a; Shriver et al. 2005; Sauer et
al. 1995). Northern Harrier and Ring-necked Pheasant, which may also be present in the
vicinity of the Proposed Route, are not obligate grassland breeders; however, they show a
strong preference for grasslands and are often included in studies of grassland birds (e.g.,
Sauer et al. 1995).
Of the grassland species anticipated to be present in the vicinity of the Proposed Route,
Ring-necked Pheasant is listed as a game species while Northern Harrier and Upland
Sandpiper are designated as state threatened species (for more details, see Section
4.10.2.6.1.2). Northern Harrier has been documented in the vicinity of the Proposed Route
within the town of Ellisburg and Upland Sandpiper has been documented in the vicinity of the
Proposed Route within the towns of Hounsfield (Galloo Island) and Mexico (NYSDEC 2008b).
No federally listed grassland bird species are anticipated to occur along the Proposed Route.
4.10.2.2.1.2 Wildlife
Based on the existing habitat found in the area, a variety of common reptiles, amphibians,
mammals and insects are expected to live along upland portions of the Proposed Route. Most
of these species are commonly found in the region. Rare upland species that may be found
along the Proposed Route are described in Section 4.10.2.3.
The New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project was reviewed to determine which
reptilian and amphibian species potentially occur within the upland portions of the Proposed
Route (Table 4.10.2-3). These species are most likely to occur along the shores of Lake
Ontario and within any wetlands, ponds, or forested areas the proposed route crosses. The
species most likely to be encountered include the northern redback salamander (Plethodon
cinereus cinereus), eastern American toad (Bufo americanus americanus), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), common snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina serpentine), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 75

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

A number of mammal species would also be expected along the Proposed Route. Some of
the most common include coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor
canadensis), mink and weasels (Mustela spp.), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and a variety
of small rodents (mice, voles and shrews). Black bear (Ursus americanus) may also be found
along the Proposed Route in low densities.
Galloo Island is known to support many of the same terrestrial mammalian species that are
found on the mainland. These include white-tailed deer, raccoon, beaver, and red fox.
Numerous species of invertebrates are likely to be found in the vicinity of the Proposed
Route. Based on data synthesized by Kondratieff (2000) and Donnelly (2004a,b and c), 79
species of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) potentially occur in the vicinity of the
Proposed Route (Table 4.10.2-4). Reproduction of nearly all species in New York requires
appropriate aquatic habitat for the growth of nymphs. However, adults may use terrestrial
habitats such as forests, shrublands and fields far from their natal habitat for foraging during
dispersal and/or mating. Species likely to be common along portions of the Proposed Route
with appropriate habitat include common green darner (Anax junius), fawn darner (Boyeria
vinosa), sparkling jewelwing (Calopteryx maculata), violet (variable) dancer (Argia
fumipennis), familiar bluet (Enallagma civile), skimming bluet (Enallagma geminatum),
orange bluet (Enallagma signatum), fragile forktail (Ischnura posita), eastern forktail
(Ischnura verticalis), slender spreadwing (Lestes rectangularis), calico pennant (Celithemis
elisa), common baskettail (Epitheca cynosura), common pondhawk (Erythemis simplicicollis),
dot-tailed whiteface (Leucorrhinia intacta), slaty skimmer (Libellula incesta), twelve-spotted
skimmer (Libellula pulchella), four-spotted skimmer (Libellula quadrimaculata), blue dasher
(Pachydiplax longipennis), common whitetail (Plathemis lydia), cherry-faced meadowhawk
(Sympetrum internum), ruby meadowhawk (Sympetrum rubicundulum) and autumn
meadowhawek (Sympetrum vicinum). The seaside dragonlet (Erythrodiplax berenice), a
species more typical of salt marshes on the Atlantic coast, was historically recorded in fresh
water along the shores of Lake Ontario in Jefferson County. No state-listed species are
expected to be present in any life stage in the vicinity of the Proposed Route.
4.10.2.2.1.3 Aquatic Resources
The upland portion of the Proposed Route crosses streams in 54 locations (for more details
on the locations of these stream crossings see Section 4.12 Hydrology). The Proposed
Route crosses the Salmon River, the largest coldwater tributary to Lake Ontario in New York
and a very productive water body for recreational salmon and trout fisheries. Salmonine
species known from the lower Salmon River are mainly migrants, including Chinook, Coho
and Atlantic salmon, as well as brown and steelhead trout. Resident rainbow, brown and
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) may also be found, especially in tributaries. Given the wide

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 76

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

variety of large salmon and trout that inhabit or migrate through the Salmon River, it is
considered to be one of the best streams in the region for recreational salmonine fishing.
Potential fish species that may be found along the Proposed Route are presented in Table
4.10.2-5.
Non-salmonid species likely to be found in surface waters crossed by upland portions of the
Proposed Route include grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus), central mudminnow
(Umbra limi), common carp, golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), eastern blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus
atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua),
common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), white sucker,
creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), brook stickleback
(Culea inconstans), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris),
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi).
The potential diversity of freshwater mussels in surface waters along the Proposed Route is
expected to be relatively low (Table 4.10.2-6), Strayer and Jirka (1997) suggest that the
eastern tributaries of Lake Ontario may possess the lowest diversity (perhaps as few as six
species) of freshwater mussels of all major river basins in New York. Many of the species
that were once common in the region have been in a long-term decline and the invasion of
exotic aquatic species such as the zebra and quagga mussels may be responsible for
additional declines in some native freshwater mussel populations.
Large, sluggish rivers and coastal embayments along the Proposed Route may support
populations of eastern elliptio, (Elliptio complanata), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata),
and eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta). In addition to these species, yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa) may potentially occur in small to moderate-sized rivers. Headwater
streams in the vicinity of the Project route may support creeper (Strophitus undulatus) and
brook lasmigona (Lasmigona compressa) while trout streams potentially provide habitat for
the eastern pearlshell (Margaritifera margaritifera).
4.10.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts to Birds, Wildlife and Aquatic Resources
Potential impacts to birds, wildlife and aquatic resources during construction, operation and
maintenance of the transmission line are described in the following sections.
4.10.2.2.2.1 Birds
Impacts to birds during construction are expected to be low along most portions of the
Proposed Route, especially those portions which do not require clearing. In areas which
require clearing, there will be a loss of bird nesting, breeding, foraging and cover habitat.
Forest habitat will be converted to meadow habitat and maintained as such. Some species
which prefer these open, grassland habitats may be able to recolonize cleared areas upon
completion of construction. Bird species may be temporarily displaced from habitat during
construction by the operation of vehicles and other heavy equipment. This could potentially

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 77

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

lead to interference with critical bird breeding activities and nesting activities during certain
times of the year.
The operation of the transmission line is expected to have minimal impacts on avian species.
Potential impacts include disturbance of habitat during ROW of maintenance and fatal
collisions with electric transmission structures and wires. During final design, the publication
Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 2006,
produced by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) will be consulted to
incorporate practices that minimize avian mortality as a result of collisions with and
electrocution from transmission lines. The other significant concern related to potential
impacts to birds during operation are those that may result from habitat fragmentation when
new areas of ROW, termed greenfields, are created. Habitat fragmentation can isolate
woodland bird populations, lead to greater incidence of Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus
ater) and American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) nest parasitism and greater exposure to
predation which can all cause local population declines. A forest fragmentation study was
completed to more thoroughly assess impacts of fragmentation on woodland birds (Appendix
F).
Grassland Birds
Impacts to obligate grassland bird species from construction activities are expected to be
low, negative, temporary and limited to existing patches of suitable habitat within the
Proposed ROW. The primary impact to grassland species would be temporary disturbance of
existing nesting territory or direct destruction of nest sites. Eastern Meadowlarks are known
to be especially sensitive to disturbance while incubating eggs. Once flushed, the female
Eastern Meadowlark will generally abandon her nest, even if it remains undamaged (Lanyon
1995).
Impacts to obligate grassland bird species from operation of the Proposed Route are
expected to be low, positive and limited to the Project site. Clearing of large woody
vegetation and subsequent maintenance would create new grassland habitat that may be
used by some grassland bird species, at least in the short term. Species most likely to
benefit from the maintained ROW include those that can make use of smaller habitat
patches, including Ring-necked Pheasant, Savannah Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow and Eastern
Meadowlark. Bobolink, which generally prefer fields more than eight years old (Martin and
Gavin 1995), may also benefit from an increase in habitat following several years of
operation.
During operation, vegetation management within the Proposed ROW is anticipated to have a
negligible impact on Upland Sandpiper. In New York, this species appears to prefer large
grassland habitats with available perches (such as fenceposts or built structures) and few or
no woody plants (New York Natural Heritage Program 2008).
Upland Sandpiper is known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed ROW in the towns of
Mexico and Hounsfield, New York. Any existing habitat for Upland Sandpiper (i.e., large
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 78

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

grassy fields and pastures) within the Proposed ROW is unlikely to be significantly altered
from its existing condition. It is not anticipated that additional useable habitat will be created
by forest clearing along the Proposed Route, as this species prefers grasslands with a large
area to perimeter ratio (New York Natural Heritage Program 2008). Minimal disturbance of
individual birds would only occur during the construction phase of the Project and would
localized and temporary with negligible impact to the species and its regional population. Any
potential impacts would be further defined through field surveys following route certification.
Accordingly, Upstate would consult with the NYSDEC on dates of construction and any time
of year limitations as appropriate.
It is also anticipated that the impact of operation on the Northern Harrier will be negligible.
Any existing grassland habitat for Northern Harrier located within the Proposed ROW is
unlikely to be significantly altered from its existing condition. Likewise, as the Northern
Harrier has a large home range over contiguous grasslands or wetlands (New York Natural
Heritage Program 2008), conversion of existing forest to new grassland habitat along the
Proposed Route is unlikely to result in any significant benefits to this species.
4.10.2.2.2.2 Wildlife
Potential impacts to wildlife along the Proposed Route include habitat destruction due to land
clearing for structures, staging areas, storage yards and access roads; habitat conversion
from forest to meadow due to long term maintenance of ROW, and displacement of wildlife
from habitat as a result of construction operations. Displacement from foraging, cover or
mating habitat may have temporary negative impacts on wildlife. In greenfields and in areas
paralleling existing electric or gas pipeline utility ROWs, line construction will require clearing
of some forested areas and permanent conversion to early successional communities
(principally old field and shrubland). Fragmentation of forest habitat in newly cleared areas
may isolate wildlife populations and make them more susceptible to disease, predation and
local extirpation.
4.10.2.2.2.3 Aquatic Resources
Potential impacts to fish and aquatic invertebrates along the upland portion of the Proposed
Route include habitat destruction due to construction of structures and access roads adjacent
to streams, reduction of canopy cover over low-order streams and siltation of waterways due
to erosion from construction areas. Access road construction and related runoff and siltation
present the greatest potential impact to aquatic resources.
Reduction of canopy cover at stream crossings could locally alter the carbon, light and heat
inputs to the stream. Construction related runoff may result in local increases in erosion and
deposition as well as pollutant loading, which may act as stressors on the local and
downstream fish and aquatic invertebrate communities. However, given the limited stream
length likely to be directly impacted at stream crossings, impacts are expected to range from
negligible (at larger streams) to minor (at low-order streams).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 79

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.10.2.2.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Birds, Wildlife and Aquatic


Resources
4.10.2.2.3.1 Birds
Detailed surveys of the existing habitats will be conducted during preparation of the EM&CP
by qualified biologists to develop strategies to minimize impacts to birds. Field visits will be
completed during the appropriate time of year to assess the value of habitat along the
Proposed Route for bird foraging, breeding and nesting. The results of these investigations
combined with data from the New York State Breeding Bird Atlas will be used to identify any
critical locations where construction can be scheduled to avoid or reduce impacts to bird
breeding or nesting success.
4.10.2.2.3.2 Wildlife
Detailed surveys of the existing habitats will be conducted during preparation of the EM&CP
by qualified biologists, with particular attention paid to areas ranked G3/S3 or lower
according to Endinger (2002). Field visits will be completed during the appropriate time of
year to assess the sensitivity of various habitats along the Proposed Route and to propose
effective strategies to minimize any potential impacts to wildlife. The results of these
investigations will be used to identify any sensitive locations where construction can be
scheduled to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife. In addition, the results of habitat surveys
will be used to determine if additional habitat management plans and mitigation activities are
necessary. Any such mitigation and habitat management activities identified by the habitat
surveys will be included in the EM&CP.
To minimize impacts to local wildlife in proposed equipment storage and staging areas,
efforts will be made to select sites that have already been cleared. Staging areas will also be
selected to avoid areas known to contain rare or sensitive wildlife species. Habitat within
staging areas will be restored upon completion of work so any displacement of wildlife should
be temporary. Disturbed areas will be restored to original grades and conditions, topsoil will
be restored and a re-vegetation plan will be implemented suitable for each location.
Dead-end access roads and gates will be used to control unauthorized vehicular use of the
ROW and to avoid habitat and wildlife disturbance from unauthorized use of off-road
vehicles. These management techniques will be described in detail in the EM&CP.
4.10.2.2.3.3 Aquatic Resources
Impacts to fishery resources will be minimized by placing structures far enough away from
water bodies to eliminate or minimize erosion potential. Along sections of the Proposed Route
where underground facilities are proposed, underground cables will be installed mostly using
an open cut trench method within the designated Proposed Route. Designated highways and
protected stream crossings will, in general, use Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) for the
cable installation in order to avoid disturbing the sediment. Where open cut trenches are

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 80

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

used to span streams, mitigation will focus on dry crossing via flume techniques and
sedimentation controls.
To minimize impacts, best management practices will be utilized to control stormwater
runoff. In general, sediment and erosion control plans will be developed and implemented to
comply with permit conditions under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SPDES
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges pursuant to Article 17 and 70 of the
Environmental Conservation law. Any permanent crossing of regulated water bodies will
meet the standards required for permit issuance by the regulating authority.
In general, vegetated buffers and no-chemical-treatment areas will be maintained along
streams, to minimize long-term impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms.
4.10.2.3 Protected Upland Species and Habitats
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5, this section describes the threatened
and endangered species in the vicinity of the Proposed Route. Potential measures to
mitigate construction impacts on these resources are also described as appropriate.
Threatened and endangered species are regulated by both the USFWS and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Each regulatory agency
identifies plant and animal species that are potentially at risk for extinction. Once a species
is listed, specific measures are required to ensure the viability of the species. In addition,
NYSDEC lists communities that are at risk using the same ranking system as plants and
animals.
4.10.2.3.1 Existing Protected Upland Species and Habitats
For Jefferson County, the (NYSNHP) lists 18 animal and 45 plant species as threatened,
endangered, or of special concern. NYSNHP also lists 16 communities of special concern for
Jefferson County (NYSNHP 2005). Additionally, the USFWS lists 23 animals (terrestrial,
marine, and freshwater) and 10 plants as threatened or endangered species for the State of
New York (USFWS 2005). Correspondence was sent to NMFS, USFWS, and NYSDEC to
gather more specific information on the presence of federally- and state-protected species
and habitats in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Appendix C).
Approximately twelve protected areas and habitats exist within eastern Lake Ontario,
specifically from Sackets Harbor, through Henderson Bay, around Stony Point, and south to
Stony Creek. These areas are designated by government agencies and national conservation
groups with varying degrees of protection based on their ecosystem rarity, species
vulnerability, and available habitat or feeding grounds for resident or migrating fish and
wildlife. The following is a list of protected areas or habitats that exist within eastern Lake
Ontario:

National Audubon Society Important Bird Area: Little Galloo Island (NAS 2005)

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 81

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

NYSDEC: Lake Ontario Islands Bird Conservation Area (BCA)/Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife
Management Area

NYSDEC: Eastern Lake Ontario Marshes BCA

NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources (New York State Coastal Resources): Little Galloo
Island Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat (SCFWH)

New York State Coastal Resources: Lakeview Marsh SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Sandy Pond Tributaries SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Salmon River SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Calf Island SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Stony Island SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Gull and Bass Islands SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Stony Point Lime Barrel Shoals SCFWH

New York State Coastal Resources: Campbell Marsh SCFWH

The Proposed Route is routed to pass through or close to one Bird Conservation Area and
three SCFWHs: the Lake Ontario Bird Conservation Area the Lakeview Marsh SCFWH, Sandy
Pond Tributaries SCFWH and the Salmon River SCFWH. In addition, because the designated
limits of several of the island-based protected areas or habitats (i.e., the Lake Ontario Islands
Wildlife Management Area) extend beyond the islands shorelines, temporary work may occur
within or in close proximity to some of these areas.
4.10.2.3.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species USFWS
Under Federal regulations, listed threatened and endangered species require protection
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies ensure, by use of
authority, that these species, and/or their habitats, are not jeopardized throughout all phases
of the project. Because of this, federal approval is required through federal permits or other
actions. If an endangered species is present in the proposed area of a project, the USFWS
must be consulted.
The USFWS categorizes at risk species as either threatened or endangered. USFWS also
identifies and lists habitats that may be at risk. Habitat designated as Critical Habitat is also
protected through the Endangered Species Act.
In addition to sending written correspondence for information on rare species, the website of
the USFWS New York Field Office in Cortland, New York, was reviewed to determine whether
any federally listed species occur in the Proposed Route (USFWS 2008). According to the
website, three federally threatened or endangered species occur in Jefferson and/or Oswego
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 82

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Counties. These include the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
and bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which
also occurs in both counties, was removed from the federal list of threatened and
endangered species in 2007. However, bald eagles will continue to be protected by the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and if present, will require a
minimum of five years of monitoring by the USFWS in cooperation with the States under the
Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2007).
After a route is certified by the Public Service Commission and the EM&CP is in preparation,
additional field work will be undertaken to survey the Proposed Route, delineate wetlands
and complete detailed threatened and endangered species surveys as applicable.
Further information on listed species is covered in the following section on New York state
rare species.
4.10.2.3.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program
The New York State listing includes additional at risk species beyond the species listed by the
USFWS. The NYSDEC regulates the endangered and threatened species of animals via
Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law. This statute prohibits the taking,
importing, transporting, possession, or sale of any endangered or threatened species. Legal
classifications for animals in New York State include: Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, Special Concern Species, Protected Wildlife, Unprotected, and Game. Also, Articles 3
and 9 of the Environmental Conservation Law regulate protected plants. The picking or
removal of protected plants, or the application of herbicides or defoliants without the owners
permission is prohibited. Legal classifications for plants in New York State include:
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Rare, Exploitably Vulnerable, and Unprotected.
The NYSDEC also categorizes species with a Global and New York State rank. This system
classifies animals, plants, and habitats based on the rarity of the element throughout the
world and in New York State. This ranking system carries no legal ramifications; however, the
state rank reflects rarity within New York State.
Information on threatened and endangered species within the Proposed Route was
requested from the Natural Heritage Program of the NYSDEC and is presented in Table
4.10.2-7. Correspondence from these agencies is included in Appendix C. In order to protect
the location of these sensitive species, the exact locations of the listed species are not
provided.
According to the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program, there are a total of seven species that
occur, or may occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project area (Table 4.10.2-7). Of these
seven species, three have historical occurrences in the Project vicinity, but have not been
documented in the area since 1979 or earlier. One species, the Indiana bat (Myotis soldalis)
is a federally and state-listed endangered species. The remainder of the species are New
York state-listed threatened or protected species.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 83

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Four of the New York State legally listed species have an assigned imperiled or critically
imperiled state rank, which indicates that typically there are five or fewer occurrences; very
few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or some factor of its biology making it
especially vulnerable in New York State. These four species include the Indiana bat, Cattle
Egret (Bubulcis ibis), Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) and blackchin shiner (Notropis
heterodon) (Table 4.10.2-7).
The NYSNHP identified a total of three (3) historic species listed within the Proposed Route,
within the 2,400-foot wide Study Area, or near the Proposed Route (Table 4.10.2-7). Historic
records indicate that the common tern (Sterna hirundo) and blackchin shiner (Notropis
heterodon) were documented in the vicinity of the Proposed Route at one time, but have not
been documented there since the 1950s. In addition, an endangered plant, the autumnal
water-starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica) was last reported in 1931. There is no recent
information on these species in the vicinity of the Proposed Route, and their current status
there is unknown. However, if appropriate habitat for these species is present in the vicinity
of the Proposed Route, it is possible that they may still occur there.
An additional four bird species were included in correspondence from NYSDEC to American
Consulting as occurring near the wind farm on Galloo Island (Appendix C). These bird species
were not included in the Article VII compilation of rare species because as stated in the
NYSDEC correspondence, any avian records within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundary
are included. The Article VII only addresses impacts to rare species from the transmission
line construction and not the actual wind farm. Only rare bird species which were listed by
NYSDEC in response to correspondence regarding the transmission line route of the Project
were included.
Rare species of greatest concern as a result of the proposed Project are discussed below.
Indiana Bat (Myotis soldalis)
According to correspondence received from NYSDEC (Appendix C), an Indiana bat maternity
colony occurs either within or in close proximity to the Proposed Route. In addition,
correspondence received from the USFWS on the Draft Proposed Scope of Environmental
Services indicated that an initial set of field investigations would be needed to identify
potential roosting and foraging habitat (Appendix C). Therefore, an assessment of Indiana
bat habitat along the terrestrial portions of the transmission line route was conducted in
September 2008, to respond to this request from the USFWS (Appendix C).
Roadside surveys and aerial photo interpretation were used to conduct a qualitative Indiana
bat habitat assessment along the Proposed Route (Appendix Q). The entire region, with its
mix of forest stands, riparian areas, wetlands and agricultural areas was all deemed suitable
as Indiana bat foraging habitat. Therefore, the study focused on assessing whether suitable
day-roosting and maternity habitat occurs along the Proposed Route. Suitable habitat
includes forest stands with dead trees (snags) of species that Indiana bats prefer and live
shagbark hickories.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 84

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The survey results found that the landscape within the Project area is fragmented and
disturbed by human activity. Within the Study Area, 45.5% of the linear distance along the
ROW was classified as unsuitable as roosting or maternity habitat. Areas of the ROW
assessed as maternity habitat accounted for only 3.6% of the total linear distance of the
ROW. Moderate suitability accounted for 34.5% of the habitat assessed, while poor and
unknown habitats accounted for 9.2% and 7.4% of the linear distance respectively. Indiana
bats may roost in habitat classified as poor or unknown, but the potential for use in these
areas is lower. The results of the habitat assessment will be used to determine what level of
field survey effort, if any, will be needed to evaluate Project impacts on Indiana bat
occurrence and habitat use in the Proposed Route.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
The bog turtle is a small, rare turtle species with a historic range throughout the eastern
United States. Their numbers have been reduced by habitat loss and fragmentation. The bog
turtle is listed as a federally threatened species in Oswego County, but was not listed as a
rare species within the project area in correspondence from NYSDEC (Appendix P). Jefferson
and Oswego counties are within the Prairie Peninsula/Lake Plain Recovery Unit (PPLP) as
established by the USFWS.
A preliminary assessment of potential bog turtle habitat was conducted along the entire 39mile mainland portion of the Proposed Route (Appendix P). The assessment consisted of a
desktop review and roadside survey to evaluate each wetland areas potential to provide
habitat for bog turtles. Bog turtles typically require groundwater-fed wetlands with a mix of
emergent and scrub-shrub plant communities and deep, mucky, organic soils. In the Lake
Plain region of New York, bog turtles are most often found in wetland complexes classified as
either medium or rich fens.
During the desktop review, those areas that were mapped as NYSDEC or NWI wetlands, had
an emergent or scrub-shrub wetland signature from aerial photos and/or were mapped with
hydric soils were identified for further investigation to evaluate their suitability as bog turtle
habitat.
The findings of the assessment suggest that although a number of emergent and scrubshrub wetlands occur within the ROW, no large-sized wetland complexes characteristic of
known bog turtle locations in the PPLP Recovery Unit were observed (Appendix P). Based on
the desktop study and limited field investigation, the authors conclude that 10 areas within 5
one-mile sections of the Proposed Route have the potential to serve as bog turtle habitat. If
deemed necessary, the authors suggest that all the wetlands in the Project site be identified
and delineated and a formal Phase I survey conducted in accordance with USFWS guidelines
(2006), for assessing wetlands for their suitability as bog turtle habitat.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 85

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.10.2.3.1.3 Significant Natural Communities


Data provided in correspondence from the NYSDECs NYSNHP was reviewed to determine
whether any significant natural communities occur within the Study Area. Correspondence
from NYSDEC listed two significant natural communities within the Study Area: calcareous
shoreline outcrop and calcareous pavement barrens (Appendix C). However, these significant
natural communities were listed based on the southern route from Galloo Island as shown in
the figure included in the NYSDEC correspondence. The northern Proposed Route from
Galloo Island does not appear to pass through either of these two significant natural
communities. The calcareous shoreline outcrop community may occur just beyond the limit of
the Study Area based on the figure included in the correspondence.
The calcareous shoreline outcrop community occurs along Lake Ontario at Stony Point and is
characterized by large slabs of exposed, pavement bedrock. Based on correspondence from
NYSDEC, this shoreline outcrop community is in fair to good condition (NYSDEC 2008). Some
portions of the community are disturbed while other portions are bordered by residential
properties. The community consists of limestone ledges which are sparsely vegetated. Typical
species include wild columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), various sedges (Carex eburnea, C.
granularis), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and
meadow rue (Thalictrum spp.). The calcareous shoreline outcrop community has an S2 state
rarity rank and a G3 global rarity rank.
The NYSDEC also noted a waterfowl winter concentration area and a colonial waterbird
nesting area as occurring in the vicinity of the Project area. These communities are not
assigned a legal status by the NYSDEC, but are assigned New York State Ranks. The
waterfowl winter concentration area is located at Stony Island and Calf Island while the
colonial nesting bird area occurs on Little Galloo Island (Appendix C). The colonial waterbird
nesting area appears to have been listed based on the southern subaquatic route from Galloo
Island.
4.10.2.3.2 Environmental Impacts to Protected Upland Species and Habitats
Potential impacts to rare species along the Proposed Route include habitat destruction due to
land clearing for structures, staging areas, storage yards and access roads; habitat
conversion from forest to meadow due to long term maintenance of ROW, and displacement
of wildlife from habitat as a result of construction operations. Land clearing associated with
construction and ROW maintenance also has the potential to fragment habitat of listed
species which can have negative consequences. These include increased exposure to
predation, disease, competition with invasive species and greater potential for local
extirpation. Further information on potential impacts of forest fragmentation on avian species
is presented in Appendix F.
Potential impacts to the three SCFWHs that the Proposed Route intersects include alteration
of stream temperature regimes through the removal of adjacent riparian canopy cover,

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 86

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

aquatic habitat fragmentation and increased sedimentation as a result of land clearing


activities for structures, access roads and work areas.
4.10.2.3.3 Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Protected Upland Species and
Habitats
Mitigation for listed species will be based upon the results of the field surveys. Timing of the
surveys will be based on species-specific information and after the route has been certified
by the New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC). While the specific mitigation
practices will be determined on a species and location-specific basis, the two primary
methods of mitigation during construction of the Project will be avoidance and
scheduling/timing of activities. These typically include placement of structures to avoid
certain habitat, use of barrier or silt fences to prevent species access to work areas and use
of special inspectors during construction.
Two of the four current species listed by NYSDEC occur on Little Galloo Island which is
approximately 2.3 miles from the subaquatic route at its closest point. Accordingly,
construction of the Proposed Route should not have any impact on the nesting habitat of the
Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) or the Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia). It is unlikely that the
Cattle Egret will feed out of over the open water near the subaquatic cable route as its prime
foraging habitat consists of agricultural fields and along the shorelines of waterbodies. The
Caspian Tern generally forages along coasts, shorelines, inland lakes, rivers, lagoons and
estuaries. It is possible that Caspian Terns range out over portions of the subaquatic route in
search of fish and may be temporarily displaced from potential foraging habitat during
construction. However, given the relatively small work area when compared to the overall
size of foraging habitat within the nearshore areas of eastern Lake Ontario, any impact as a
result of displacement will be negligible.
The Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) has been recently documented by NYSDEC in
Mexico, Oswego County, and Hounsfield, Jefferson County. Although it is a shorebird, it is an
obligate grassland species (Houston and Bowen 2001). As discussed in Section 4.10.2.2.2.1,
though the Upland Sandpiper may be found in the vicinity of the Proposed ROW during the
breeding season, construction be timed to take place outside of the breeding season if
needed and is therefore expected to have a negligible impact on the species. Any existing
habitat for Upland Sandpiper (i.e., large grassy fields and pastures) within the Proposed ROW
is unlikely to be significantly altered from its existing condition. It is not anticipated that
additional useable habitat will be created by forest clearing along the Proposed Route, as this
species prefers grasslands with a large area to perimeter ratio (New York Natural Heritage
Program 2008). Habitat fragmentation is not likely to be an issue for this species based on its
preference for grassland over forest habitat.
For Indiana bats, should any clearing be required during the time when bats are potentially
roosting in trees, a qualified bat scientist will investigate trees for Indiana bats prior to tree
removal. Additional field studies beyond the survey completed in September 2008 will be

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 87

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

coordinated with the appropriate New York State and USFWS offices to ensure Indiana bat
issues are addressed.
Structures will be located away from the banks of waterbodies crossed in the SCFWH areas
to minimize any impacts to these waterbodies. Erosion controls such as silt fence and hay
bales will used to prevent sedimentation of these significant stream habitats. Construction of
permanent access roads across SCFWHs will be avoided where possible. Any necessary
underground stream crossings through SCFWHs will be accomplished through low impact
HDD technology rather than trenching methods.
4.11 Physical Resources
The following sections describe the existing physical resources within the proposed
Upland/Subaquatic Project route. Descriptions of the Project and Proposed Route ROW are
presented in Exhibit 2, Location of Facilities; and Exhibit 4, Section 4.2, Project Description.
4.11.1 Existing Conditions - Upland Transmission Line
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c), this section describes the
topography, geology, and soils in the vicinity of the upland portion of the Proposed Route ROW
from where it makes landfall in the Town of Henderson to the converter station in the Town of
Mexico. Potential impacts and measures to mitigate those impacts on physical resources are
described.
The information for this section was obtained primarily from county soils surveys, publications of
the New York State Geological Survey within the New York State Museum, publications of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Mineral
Resources, and electronic data files available from the Cornell University Geospatial Information
Repository website. A more detailed study of these resources will be conducted during the field
investigations that will be part of the development of the EM&CP submitted for Public Service
Commission review and approval prior to the start of Project construction. An expanded EM&CP
outline is included in Appendix D.
4.11.1.1 Geologic Setting and Topography
The project area is located entirely within the Ontario Lowlands portion of the Erie-Ontario
Lake Plain. The Tug Hill Plateau is located about five miles from the southeastern portion of
the project area. The topography through the Proposed Route ROW is generally nearly level
to rolling.
Figure 2.1-1 shows the Proposed Route ROW on USGS topographic maps. A profile of the
elevations along the centerline of the Proposed Route ROW is shown on Figure 5-1 in Exhibit
5. Elevations along the Proposed Route range between approximately 250 feet above mean
sea level at the proposed landfall in the Town of Henderson to a maximum elevation of
approximately 510 feet above mean sea level in the Town of Ellisburg, approximately 17

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 88

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

miles south southeast from the proposed landfall. Thus, the maximum elevation change
along the entirety of the Proposed Route is approximately 260 feet.
Digital elevation models with 10 meter by 10 meter grids were used to calculate the percent
slopes within 1,200 feet of each side of the centerline of the Proposed Route. The digital
elevation models were calculated using information from the USGS National Elevation
Dataset. Areas with less than 10% slope, 10 to 20% slope, 21 to 40% slope, and areas with
slopes greater than 40% were delineated using spatial modeling and analysis software.
Nearly all of the Proposed Route ROW will traverse relatively level areas with less than 10%
slopes (approximately 99.85% or 39.02 miles, based upon digital elevation model analysis).
Approximately 0.15% (0.06 miles) will be located in areas with slopes with 10 to 20%. None
of the Proposed Route ROW will be located in areas with 21 to 40% slopes or areas with
greater than 40% slopes. The calculation results are presented in Table 4.11-1. Detailed
information regarding area-specific slopes along the selected route will be obtained as part of
engineering surveys and environmental field investigations during development of the
EM&CP.
4.11.1.2 Geology
This section describes the general geologic conditions in the Project vicinity. A summary of
potential impacts and feasibility for the Proposed Route ROW with respect to geology is
presented in Section 4.11.2.
Figures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 show the Proposed Route with station numbers overlain on a
surficial geologic map and bedrock geological map, respectively (Caldwell, D. and Pair D.L.
1991). Figure 4.11-3 shows the approximate depth to bedrock below the soil surface within
the area of the Proposed Route as estimated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) (STATSGO2 Soil Data 2006). Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 summarize the surficial and
bedrock geology, respectively, as mapped from north to south according to county, town,
and station number. The tables summarize mapped surface and shallow geology and rock
types both within 1,200 feet of each side of the Proposed Route centerline (a 2,400-foot wide
study area) and within the 150-foot wide Proposed Route ROW. Table 4.11-4 also compiles
the acres of surficial geologic types mapped above bedrock within the 2,400-foot wide study
area and within the Proposed Route ROW. These figures and tables are referred to in the
following sections.
4.11.1.2.1 Regional Upland Surficial Geological Conditions
The Ontario Lowlands surficial is comprised primarily of glaciolacustrine lake silts, clays, and
fine sands. Areas overlain by glacial till or till moraine are also present in the Ontario
Lowlands (Isachsen et al. 2000).
Galloo Island

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 89

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Surficial geology mapped on Galloo Island consists primarily of lacustrine silts and clays
which are generally comprised of laminated silts and clays. These soils typically have a low
permeability and have the potential to exhibit land instability. Thicknesses of lacustrine silt
and clay are highly variable. As observed during field visits in October 2007, soil thicknesses
on Galloo Island are shallow (typically less than 2.0 feet), with large areas of exposed
bedrock.
Stony Point Peninsula
Typical surficial geology on Stony Point Peninsula (Stations 0-4 as indicated on Figure 4.111), where the Proposed Route makes landfall in the Town of Henderson, consists primarily of
lacustrine silts and clays (approximately 521 acres), areas of exposed or very shallow
bedrock (approximately 404 acres), and till moraine (approximately 183 acres).
As shown on Figure 4.11-3, the thickness of the lacustrine silts and clays is expected to be
generally less than three feet near the proposed landfall area and is expected to increase to
approximately 5 to 10 feet near Station 4.
Till moraine is also present in the Stony Point area. The composition of the till moraine is
highly variable and typically poorly sorted with a low permeability. As indicated on Figure
4.11-3, within the Stony Point Peninsula the till moraine is generally expected to be less than
5 to 10 feet thick.
Bedrock, which is part of the Trenton Group as described in Section 4.11.1.2.2, can be
exposed or within one meter of the ground surface. Areas of decomposed (weathered) rock
may also be present.
Henderson
Surficial geology mapped in the Town of Henderson (Stations 5-8 as indicated on Figure
4.11-1), consists primarily of lacustrine silt and clay (approximately 796 acres), areas of
exposed or very shallow bedrock (approximately 404 acres), and till moraine (approximately
161 acres). The thickness of unconsolidated deposits throughout the proposed Project ROW
in this area of Henderson is likely highly variable.
Ellisburg
Surficial geology mapped in the Town of Ellisburg (Stations 8-21 as indicated on Figure 4.111), consist primarily of lacustrine silt and clay (approximately 1,890 acres), areas of lacustrine
sand (approximately 911 acres), and till (approximately 492 acres). Areas of subaqueous fan
(approximately 106 acres), exposed or very shallow bedrock (approximately 91 acres), and
recent alluvium (approximately 74 acres) are also present. The thickness of unconsolidated
deposits throughout the proposed Project ROW in Ellisburg is expected to be highly variable.
The lacustrine sand deposits are generally composed of well sorted quartz sand and are
typically stratified and permeable.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 90

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Till composition is highly variable and typically poorly sorted. Grain sizes range from
boulders to silt and permeability is variable depending on the degree of compaction.
A subaqueous fan deposit is a coarse to fine gravel and/or sand that can be well to poorly
sorted.
Recent alluvium is comprised of oxidized fine sand to gravel and is generally permeable.
Deposits of recent alluvium are typically found in valley flood plains with highly variable
thicknesses.
Sandy Creek
Surficial geology mapped in the Town of Sandy Creek (Stations 21-27 as indicated on Figure
4.11-1), consists primarily of lacustrine sand (approximately 831 acres), till (approximately
558 acres) and lacustrine silt and clay (approximately 284 acres). The thickness of
unconsolidated deposits throughout the proposed Project ROW in Sandy Creek is likely
variable but expected to be generally greater than in Henderson and Ellisburg as evidenced
by the lack of mapped exposed and/or shallow bedrock.
Richland
Surficial geology mapped in the Town of Richland (Stations 27-38 as indicated on Figure
4.11-1), consists primarily of lacustrine silts and clays (approximately 1,389 acres), till
(approximately 761 acres) and areas of lacustrine sand (approximately 675 acres). Areas of
recent alluvium (approximately 86 acres) and kame deposits (approximately 0.64 acres) are
also present. The thickness of unconsolidated deposits throughout the proposed Project ROW
in Richland is likely variable but generally expected to be greater than Henderson and
Ellisburg as evidenced by lack of bedrock exposures.
Kame deposits are comprised of coarse to fine gravel and/or sand that exhibit lateral
variations in sorting, grain size, and permeability. In some instances these deposits can be
firmly cemented. Typically, thicknesses of kame deposits are highly variable.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 91

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Mexico
Surficial geology mapped in the Town of Mexico (Stations 38-42 as indicated on Figure 4.111) consists primarily of lacustrine sand (approximately 539 acres), kame deposits
(approximately 302 acres) and areas of lacustrine silts and clays (approximately 194 acres).
The thickness of unconsolidated deposits throughout the proposed Project ROW in Mexico is
unknown but is expected to be greater than in Henderson and Ellisburg as evidenced by the
lack of mapped exposed bedrock.
4.11.1.2.2 Regional Bedrock Geological Conditions
The bedrock in the Proposed Route ROW is mapped as being comprised of the Trenton
Group, Utica Shale, Pulaski and Oswego Sandstones, along with the Grimbsy Formation (New
York State Geologic Survey 1999).
Galloo Island
Bedrock underlying Galloo Island is mapped as the Trenton Group. The Trenton Group is
described as interbedded layers of limestone that are approximately 3 to 15 inches thick
alternating with thin black shale layers (Isachsen et al. 2000). Reportedly caverns and closed
depressions have been mapped in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, New York (Tetra
Tech 2007), which are located approximately 20 miles northeast of Henderson and Galloo
Island. The project area is mapped by the American Geological Institute as being within a
region where caves and sinkholes may be present (Veni 2001). As observed during site visits
in October 2007, bedrock on Galloo Island occurs at depths typically less than 2 feet below
ground surface, with large areas of exposed bedrock.
Stony Point Peninsula
Bedrock underlying the Stony Point Peninsula, where the Proposed Route makes landfall in
the Town of Henderson, is mapped as the Trenton Group. Typical depths to bedrock on the
Stony Point Peninsula range from approximately 1 to 3 feet below the soil surface near the
shore of Lake Ontario to approximately 5 to 10 feet below the soil surface further inland near
Station 5 (USDA 2006). Approximately 404 acres of shallow (depth to bedrock considered
less than three feet) to exposed bedrock are mapped as present within the 2,400-foot wide
study area.
Henderson
Bedrock in the Town of Henderson (Stations 5-8 as indicated on Figure 4.11-2), is mapped as
the Trenton Group. The thickness of surficial sediments overlaying the bedrock in Henderson
is variable (Figure 4.11-1). Approximately 91 acres of shallow to exposed bedrock are
present within the proposed ROW, mainly near Stations 5 and 6, with no shallow bedrock
mapped near Station 7. This suggests that the thickness of unconsolidated deposits likely
increases to the south along the Proposed Route ROW and 2,400-foot wide study area.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 92

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Ellisburg
Several different types of surficial geologic areas are mapped in the Town of Ellisburg
(Stations 8-21 as indicated on Figure 4.11-1).
Between Stations 8 and 15, bedrock is mapped as the Trenton Group.
Between Stations 15 and 19 the bedrock is mapped as the Utica (black) Shale. The Utica
Shale is a black shale, which is fossiliferous and rich in organic carbon (total organic carbon
content is typically between 1-3%) (Isachsen et al. 2000).
Between Stations 19 and 21, bedrock is mapped as the fine-grained sandstone known as the
Pulaski Formation. The Pulaksi Formation is up to approximately 400 feet thick (120 meters)
(Isachsen et al. 2000). The thickness of unconsolidated deposits overlaying the bedrock in
Ellisburg is likely variable, but there are no reported exposures of bedrock throughout the
area, suggesting that unconsolidated deposits are thicker than those identified in the
northern section of the Proposed ROW.
Sandy Creek
Bedrock in the Town of Sandy Creek (Stations 21-27 as indicated on Figure 4.11-2) is
mapped as belonging to the Pulaski Formation, which is described as a fine-grained gray-red
sandstone. The sandstone is typically interlayered with siltstone and shale with the amount
of shale decreasing upward in the formation (Isachsen et al. 2000; Stillwell, S. et al. 2005).
The Pulaski Formation is up to approximately 120 meters thick. The thickness of
unconsolidated deposits overlaying the bedrock in Sandy Creek is likely variable, but there
are no reported exposures of bedrock throughout the area.
Richland
The Town of Richland is underlain by two different types of bedrock. In the northern half
(between Stations 27 and 31), bedrock is mapped as the Pulaski Formation (Isachsen et al.
2000). In the southern half of the town (between Stations 31 and 38), the bedrock is
mapped as being a slightly coarser sandstone, compared to the Pulaski Formation, known as
the Oswego Sandstone (Isachsen et al. 2000). The Oswego Formation is characterized by
interlayered thin to thick beds of gray-green sandstone and siltstone with large crossbeds.
The contact between the Pulaski Formation and the Oswego Formation is gradational with
the Pulaski Formation containing significantly more shale than the Oswego Formation
(Stillwell, S. et al. 2005). The Oswego is up to approximately 100 feet (30 meters) thick. The
thickness of unconsolidated deposits overlaying the bedrock in Richland is unknown, but
there are no reported exposures of bedrock throughout the area.
Mexico
A small section of the Proposed Route ROW through the Town of Mexico (between Stations
38 and 39 as indicated on Figure 4.11-1), is underlain by the Oswego Sandstone described

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 93

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

above (Isachsen et al. 2000; Stillwell et al. 2005). The majority of the route through the
Town of Mexico (between Stations 39 and 41, as indicated on Figure 4.11-2), is mapped as
the Grimbsy Formation, which is described as a red, green, and mottled sandstone, siltstone,
and shale (Isachsen et al. 2000). The Grimsby Formation is generally unfossiliferous, with
ripple marks, cross-bedding, mud cracks and localized conglomerate. The Grimsby Formation
is up to approximately 70 feet (21 meters) thick. The thickness of unconsolidated deposits
overlaying the bedrock in Mexico is likely variable, but there are no mapped exposures of
bedrock throughout the area.
4.11.1.2.3 Summary of Geology of Proposed Route from Henderson to Mexico
Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 summarize the bedrock and surficial geology, respectively, as
mapped from north to south according to county and station number. The tables summarize
mapped surface and shallow unconsolidated deposits and rock types both within the 2,400foot wide study area and within the Proposed Route ROW. Table 4.11-4 compiles the total
acres of surficial soil types mapped above bedrock within the 2,400-foot wide study area and
within the entirety of the Proposed Route ROW.
In summary, unconsolidated deposits mapped along the majority of the Proposed Route
ROW consist of lacustrine silt and clays (45.0%), followed by lacustrine sand (25.9%), and
till (16.1%). Bedrock is mapped as exposed along approximately 5% of the Proposed Route
ROW, as indicated on Table 4.11-4. Unconsolidated deposits mapped along the majority of
the 2,400-foot wide study area are similar to that of the Proposed Route ROW and consist of
lacustrine sand (35.4%), followed by lacustrine silts and clays (24.9%), and till (21.7%).
Bedrock is mapped as exposed along approximately 7.1% of the 2,400-foot wide study area,
as indicated on Table 4.11-4. Exposed bedrock is mapped within the Proposed Route ROW
and 2,400-foot side study area primarily on Galloo Island, Stony Point, Henderson, and the
northern portion of Ellisburg. No mapped outcrops of bedrock are present within the
proposed ROW and/or the study area in the southern portion of the route through Sandy
Creek, Richland, and Mexico.
4.11.1.3 Mines and Wells
A search of the NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources mines database (NYSDEC 2006)
located a total of two active sand and gravel mines within the 2,400-foot wide study area.
Neither of the mines is mapped as being within the Proposed Route ROW, however site
specific reconnaissance will be performed to verify that the Proposed Route ROW does not
encroach upon the mines to the extent feasible. Table 4.11-5 lists the locations of the active
mines.
A search of the NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources wells database (NYSDEC 2000) located
eight oil and gas wells within the 2,400-foot wide study area. None of the wells exist within
the Proposed Route ROW. Table 4.11-6 lists the status of the wells, all of which are located
in Oswego County, as unknown.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 94

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.11.1.4 National Natural Landmarks and Unique Geologic Features


No National Natural Landmarks have been designated by the National Park Service within the
Proposed Route ROW, or in any of the towns where the Project is proposed for location
(National Park Service Database accessed on November 24, 2008).
No unique geologic features are identified within or near the Proposed ROW or study area
based on a review of the NYSDEC Division of Lands & Forests database (accessed on
December 2, 2008). The Proposed Route ROW is located approximately one mile northnortheast of the Robert G. Wehle State Park and the Henderson Shores Unique Area, which
is a reforestation area and not a unique geologic feature, at its closest approach.
4.11.1.5 Soil Types Along Proposed Route
Soils within the 2,400-foot wide study area were identified based on information in the USDA
Soil Surveys for Jefferson (1989) and Oswego (1981) Counties.
The soil information is
provided by county (from north to south) along the Proposed Route in Table 4.11-7, and is
summarized below. Soils were identified within the 2,400-foot wide study area, including the
Proposed Route ROW. Soil types identified within the 2,400-foot wide study area include
prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and hydric soils. These soils and soils
within areas of active agriculture (see Section 4.7.1) will require special construction
techniques and best management practices to minimize impacts to these resources. Key soil
characteristics reported on the tables for each soil type also include erosion hazard potential.
slope, depth to the groundwater table, depth to bedrock, and bedrock hardness. Soil types
along segments of the routes and their characteristics pertinent to construction, as reported
in the references above, are summarized below.
Based on a GIS analysis of maps of USDA Soil Surveys for Jefferson (1989) and Oswego
(1981) Counties, approximately 115 different soil types are present within the Proposed
Route ROW however, approximately 91 of these soils are present in less than 1.0% (or fewer
than 7.1 acres) of the Proposed Route ROW. Approximately 141 different soil types are
mapped as present within the 2,400-foot wide study area, however approximately 116 of
these soil types comprise less than 1.0% (or fewer than 111 acres) within the 2,400-foot
wide study area. All soil types present within the Proposed Route ROW and the 2,400-foot
wide study area are identified in Table 4.11-7. Soil types occurring within greater than 20
acres (or 2.8%) of the Proposed Route ROW are described in more detail below using Official
Series Descriptions as published by the USDA-NRCS in the 1989 Soil Survey of Jefferson
County, New York (USDA 1989).
The most common soil type within the Proposed Route ROW is the Collamer Silt Loam
(CnB), which tends to occur mainly in convex, sloping areas on plains. The CnB is present
on approximately 99 acres (14%) within the proposed ROW. The CnB is comprised of
moderately well-drained, non-hydric soils, with a maximum height of the water table
approximately 1.5 to 2.0 feet below grade.
The CnB occurs on gentle slopes of
approximately 3-8% and has a slight erosion hazard. The CnB is first encountered

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 95

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

immediately to the east of Station 4 in Henderson and is last encountered between Stations
15 and 16 in Ellisburg.
The second most common soil type within the Proposed Route ROW is the Ira gravelly fine
sandy loam (IrB), which occurs mainly in elongated areas on hilltops and in undulating
areas on upland plains. The IrB is present within approximately 55.5 acres (7.8%) of the
Proposed Route ROW. The IrB is moderately well-drained, non-hydric soil, with a maximum
height of the water table that occurs approximately 1 to 2 feet below grade. The IrB occurs
on gentle slopes of approximately 3-8% and has a slight erosion hazard. The IrB is first
encountered near Station 17 in Ellisburg and occurs with a scattered distribution with some
localized predominance through Station 40 in Mexico.
The third most common soil type within the Proposed Route ROW is the Scriba gravelly
fine sandy loam (ScB), which occurs mainly on till plains and concave areas between
drumlins. The ScB is present within approximately 35.8 acres (5.0%) of the Proposed Route
ROW. The ScB is a somewhat poorly drained, non-hydric soil, with a maximum height of the
water table of 0.5 to 1.2 feet below grade. The ScB occurs on flat or gentle slopes of
approximately 0-8% and has a slight erosion hazard. The ScB is first encountered near
Station 21 in Sandy Creek and occurs with a scattered distribution through Station 41 in
Mexico.
The fourth most common soil type within the Proposed Route ROW is the Benson-Galoo
Complex (BgB), which occurs mainly in broad, undulating areas interspersed with bedrock
outcrops on ridges. Rock outcrops can comprise up to 10% of these areas. The BgB is
present within approximately 28.5 acres (4.0%) of the Proposed Route ROW. The BgB is a
somewhat excessively to excessively drained, non-hydric soil. The maximum height of the
water table is not reported for this soil type. The BgB occurs on flat or gentle slopes of
approximately 0-8% and has a slight erosion hazard. The BgB is the predominant soil type
just inland of the proposed landfall and Station 2. The BgB occurs in limited areas between
Stations 3 and 7 in Henderson and is not encountered after Station 7.
The last soil type present within greater than 20 acres (2.8%) within the Proposed Route
ROW is the Raynham Silt Loam (RaB). The RaB occurs primarily on glacial lake plains and
is present within approximately 27.5 acres (3.9%) of the Proposed Route ROW. The RaB is a
poorly drained, non-hydric soil with a maximum height of the water table of approximately
0.5 to 2.0 feet below grade. The RaB is primarily present on flat or gently slope of 0-6% but
locally slopes can be as great as 12% and has a slight erosion hazard. The RaB is first
encountered near Station 24 in Sandy Creek. The RaB occurs with a scattered distribution
through Station 41 in Mexico and is occasionally locally predominant in several areas along
the Proposed Route ROW.
In general rock, rock outcrops and/or rocky soil are most common within the northern
portion of the Proposed Route ROW (Stations 1-6). Well drained loams are most common in
the mid portion of the route, primarily between Stations 7 to 19 in Henderson and Ellisburg.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 96

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Soil types are more variable between Station 19 in Ellisburg and the end of the Proposed
Routed ROW at Station 41 in Mexico, but are primarily comprised of moderately well to
somewhat poorly drained sandy loams. However, hydric soils and poorly drained soils are
more prevalent between Station 22 and the end of the Proposed Route ROW than between
the proposed landfall and Station 22.
4.11.1.6 Erosion Hazard
The potential erosion hazard associated with specific soil types is classified as slight,
moderate, severe, or very severe. The potential erosion hazards of soils along the route
were identified from applicable NRCS Access databases (USDA 2006) for both counties along
the Proposed Route. The probability of erosion is based on the soil erodibility K-factor, slope,
and the soils content of rock fragments. A rating of slight indicates that little or no erosion
is likely; moderate indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads or trails may require
occasional maintenance, and that simple erosion-control measures are needed; severe
indicates that significant erosion is expected, that the roads or trails require frequent
maintenance, and that costly erosion-control measures are needed; and very severe
indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are
likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical. It is expected that
these soils will require special consideration in the siting and installation of structures and
access improvements (including equipment type and construction methods), in order to
minimize soil disturbance and prevent excessive loss of soil.
The majority of soils within the 2,400-foot wide study area (82.0% by total area) are
classified as presenting a slight potential erosion hazard. Potential erosion hazards presented
by remaining soil types are classified as moderate (10%), severe (0.8%), and very severe
(2.0%). The remaining 4.6% are not reported or were not available for publication.
As discussed in the section 4.1.1 and shown on Table 4.11-1, the percentages of the
Proposed Route ROW crossing slopes of less than 10% slope, 10 to 20% slope, 21 to 40%
slope, and greater than 40% were calculated for the Project. Nearly 99.9% of the Proposed
Route ROW crosses relatively level terrain, with slopes less than 10%. As a result, steep
slopes should not increase erosion hazard along the route as the terrain is largely level to
gently sloping.
4.11.1.7 Prime Farmland
The USDA (USDA 2007) defines prime farmland as land that has the best combination of
physical and chemical properties for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops.
Areas of active agriculture were discussed previously in Section 4.7.1 of this report and may
or may not correspond with areas of prime farmland.
In general. prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from
precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or
alkalinity, an acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. Prime farmland soils

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 97

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

within the 2,400-foot wide study area and the Proposed Route ROW are identified in Table
4.11-7, and include those soils classified as prime or prime if drained.
Within the 2,400-foot wide study area, approximately 30% of the total acreage is classified
as prime farmland. Approximately 70% of the soils are not classified as prime farmland.
Measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to prime farmland are proposed in
Section 4.11.3 and the EM&CP.
4.11.1.8 Farmland of Statewide Importance
The USDA (USDA website accessed on August 23, 2008) generally defines farmland of
statewide importance to include those that are near prime farmland, and that economically
produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming
methods. Farmland of statewide importance within the 2,400-foot wide study area, including
the Proposed Route ROW, is identified in Table 4.11-7. Areas of active agriculture were
discussed previously in Section 4.7.1 of this report and may or may not correspond with
areas of farmland of statewide importance.
Within the 2,400-foot wide study area, approximately 34% of the total acreage is classified
as farmland of statewide importance. Approximately 66% of the soils are not classified as
farmland of statewide importance. Measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to
farmland of statewide importance are summarized in Section 4.11.2 and the EM&CP.
4.11.1.9 Hydric Soils and Depth to High Groundwater Table
The NRCS defines hydric soils as soils formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or
ponding that occurs long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions
in the upper part of the soil layer. Under sufficiently wet conditions, these soils also have the
potential to support hydrophytic vegetation. In addition, a seasonally high ground water
table in certain soils may affect excavation techniques, as sloughing or caving may occur as a
result of wet conditions. Depth to the water table below surface ground and soils likely to be
hydric along the Proposed Route ROW are identified in Table 4.11-7. Detailed information
regarding area-specific hydric soils along the selected route will be obtained as part of
engineering surveys and environmental field investigations during development of the
EM&CP.
Within the 2,400-foot wide study area, approximately 13% of the total acreage of soils is
classified as hydric. Approximately 87% of the soils are not classified as hydric soils. Within
the 2,400-foot wide study area, approximately 77% of the soils are reported with the upper
limit of the water table less than six feet deep, and the remaining 23% do not have a depth
to water table listed. Thus, seasonally groundwater can be expected within six feet of the
ground surface along 77% of the Proposed Route ROW. None of the reported soils have an
upper limit of the water table greater than six feet deep.
The most extensive hydric soil types identified within the Proposed Route ROW include the
following: Fluvaquents (Fu) and Fluvaquents and Udifluvents (FA) which are present on 26.3
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 98

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

acres (3.7% of the Proposed Route ROW); the Madalin Silt Loam (Ma) which is present on
17.3 acres (2.4%); the Carlisle Muck (Cd) which is present on 16.14 acres (2.3%); and the
Rumney Loam (RU) which is present on 13.2 acres (1.9%). All other hydric soils mapped as
being present within the Proposed Route ROW occupy less than 5 acres, or less than 0.7% of
the acreage with the Proposed Route ROW.
Isolated small pockets of hydric soils are present primarily near Stations 3, 6 and 7 within the
Proposed Route ROW in Henderson.
Small pockets of hydric soils are present primarily near Stations 9-11, 15, and 17-20 within
the Proposed Route ROW in Ellisburg. Thus, within the northern portion of the route through
Jefferson County (Stations 1 through 22), very limited acreage of hydric soils are present.
The majority of hydric soils in Ellisburg are oriented primarily perpendicular to the Proposed
Route ROW, so some of these soils may potentially be avoided by careful siting of poles in
selected locations.
Small pockets of hydric soils are interspersed between Stations 21 and 23 and the near
Station 25 through Station 27 in the Town of Sandy Creek. The majority of hydric soils in
Sandy Creek are oriented primarily perpendicular to the Proposed Route ROW, so some of
these soils may potentially be avoided by careful siting of poles in selected locations.
Within the Town of Richland relatively large areas of hydric soils are present near Stations 27
through 29, between Stations 33 and 35, and near Station 37. Smaller pockets of hydric soils
are interspersed through the remainder of the Proposed ROW within Richland. Given the
abundance of hydric soils within the Proposed Route ROW in Richland, construction within
areas of hydric soils may be required. Proposed mitigation measures are summarized in
Section 4.11.3 and the EM&CP.
Small pockets of hydric soils are interspersed between Stations 39 and 41in the Town of
Mexico. The majority of hydric soils in Mexico are oriented primarily perpendicular to or
adjacent to the Proposed Route ROW so some of these hydric soils may potentially be
avoided by careful siting of the poles in selected locations.
Measures to mitigate hydric soils will be implemented as needed during construction as
summarized in Section 4.11.3 and described in detail in the EM&CP.
4.11.1.10 Depth to Bedrock
Depth to bedrock of each soil type is identified in Table 4.11-7, as estimated by the USDA.
Within the 2,400-foot wide study area, approximately 42% of the mapped soils have a typical
depth to bedrock of equal to or less than 40 inches, and less than 1% of the soils have a
typical depth to bedrock of between 40 and 60 inches. The remaining 58% do not have a
typical depth to bedrock listed. None of the reported soils have a typical depth to bedrock of
greater than 60 inches. Where necessary, depth to bedrock will be confirmed prior to
installation.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 99

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.11.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Upland Transmission Line


Potential impacts to physical resources would occur primarily during installation of the upland
transmission line and construction of ancillary facilities. Impacts could include erosion of
disturbed soils and sedimentation into nearby water resources, compaction or erosion of
farmland soils, inadequate segregation of topsoils in agricultural areas, and rockslides or
landslides on slopes.
Potential impacts to physical resources will be minimized through appropriate siting of
foundations and use of best management practices during construction. Impacts will be
minimized by the typical 400 to 600 foot separation between tower structures along the length of
the Proposed Route. The ability to have some flexibility in siting the precise location of these
structures within the corridor will also help to minimize impacts, by avoiding bedrock outcrops,
wetlands, hydric soils, prime farmland, and other soil resources, to the extent feasible.
Measures to minimize potential Project impacts to physical resources are described in the EM&CP
(Appendix D). This plan incorporates applicable best management practices from the NYSDEC
Technical and Operational Guidance Series for erosion control and storm water management
during construction and, where applicable, NYSDAM agricultural protection guidelines in the
Pipeline Right-of-Way Construction Project guidance document (NYSDAM 1997).
Construction of the Project will be temporary, of short duration, and highly localized.
Construction activities will be monitored by qualified environmental inspectors, to ensure Project
compliance with best management practices and mitigation measures detailed in the EM&CP.
Construction methods have been selected to minimize potential Project impacts to physical
resources, High-angle direction drilling (HDD) installation methods will be used at the landfall to
transition the subaquatic cable to the mainland, to avoid disturbing shoreline areas. In the
immediate vicinity of the landfall in Henderson and at the transformer station in Mexico, the
cables will be installed underground. Using primarily an open cut trench method, the
underground cables will be installed in a trench approximately 9 feet wide at the top and a
minimum of 5 feet deep. Excavated native soils will be temporarily placed or stockpiled adjacent
to the trench where possible. Testing of the thermal characteristics of native soils will be
undertaken to determine the feasibility of using the excavated soil (potentially mixed with other
backfill material) as a thermal backfill material. The remainder of the excavated soils may be reused on site or removed by rail car, or truck where rail transportation is not available, to a predetermined approved disposal site.
Installation of the transmission tower footings will be accomplished using mechanical excavators,
pneumatic hammers, or rock drilling. Typically, along the upland transmission line, access roads
will be 16 feet wide and constructed for single lane traffic. Permanent access roads will be
constructed with graded gravel base and surface and will be designed for minimum maintenance.
Temporary access roads will, where possible, be constructed using native soils to minimize
imported materials that may require removal when the road is deactivated. Where the addition of

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 100

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

imported materials is necessary to provide a stable road base, these will be kept to the minimum
necessary given the duration of use and loads to be carried.
General construction constraints related to physical resources, such as topography (i.e., slopes),
geology (i.e., depth to bedrock, hardness of bedrock), soil types (i.e., hydric soils, farmland soils,
high erodibility, etc.) are described in more detail below, together with Project-specific conditions
and proposed mitigation measures. Note that the identification of these potential constraints or
need for mitigation measures does not necessarily mean that specific adverse conditions exist or
that mitigation measures will be required everywhere along the route, but rather that a type of
physical resource has the potential to present the listed constraint.
Slopes
There are limited changes in local relief along the proposed ROW, with slopes at less than 10%
along 99.8% of the proposed ROW. Therefore, potential impacts due to steep slopes, such as
rockslides or landslides, should not pose a significant construction concern along the Proposed
Route.
Erosion Hazard
The erosion hazard of soils is characterized as slight by the USDA for approximately 82% and
moderate for 10% of the soils mapped within the 2,400-foot wide study area. The relatively
gentle slopes within the Proposed Route ROW are unlikely to exacerbate erosion during
construction. Mitigation techniques such as installation of silt fencing and hay bales prior to
construction, prompt restoration of vegetative cover, and other measures as described in the
EM&CP should be sufficient to mitigate potential erosion.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are mapped within approximately 13% of the study area. The depth to maximum
high groundwater is less than 6 feet below grade within 77% of the study area. Thus,
groundwater dewatering may be required in excavations, particularly during wetter seasons
(typically Spring) and during periods of high rainfall and/or snowmelt. If dewatering is required
during construction, mitigation measures, including settlement or filtration to reduce turbidity,
discharge control, and other measures may be required and will be conducted in accordance with
applicable New York State guidelines. The spacing of towers may warrant adjustment to avoid
areas of hydric soils, wherever feasible.
Bedrock
Foundation design and installation, trench excavation for underground conductors, and other
construction activities may be affected by areas with a shallow depth to bedrock. Shallow and or
exposed bedrock, typically the carbonate Trenton Group, has been observed on Galloo Island and
mapped within the 2,400-foot wide study area on Stony Point, in Henderson, and the northern
portion of Ellisburg. Geotechnical studies will be conducted post-permitting to determine the
competency of the bedrock and confirm depth to bedrock, where needed.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 101

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

No bedrock outcrops occur within the study area in the towns of Sandy Creek, Richmond, or
Mexico, based upon the maps and studies reviewed. For approximately 58% of the route, the
estimated depth to bedrock is not reported by USDA. However, based on known exposures of
bedrock within the Proposed Route ROW, specialized construction methods such as the use of
pneumatic hammers, rock drills, and limited blasting may be required, in addition to mechanical
excavation, if shallow bedrock is encountered. Shallow bedrock may occur particularly in the
vicinity of Stations 1 through 6.
Blasting, if found necessary in limited areas, will be conducted in accordance with all applicable
regulations and professional standards. If the contractor identifies areas where blasting will be
required, detailed plans and specifications will be included in the Projects final EM&CP, to be filed
post-certification.
Farmland
Approximately one third of soils within the 2,400-foot wide study area are classified as prime
farmland and/or farmland of statewide importance. In areas containing these soils and in areas
under active agriculture, construction activities and mitigation measures will fully comply with
applicable NYSDAM agricultural protection guidelines (NYSDAM 1997). Examples of mitigation
measures that will be implemented include siting of structures and access roads to disturbance of
active agriculture fields, and, if disturbance is unavoidable, implementation of topsoil protection
and restoration measures. Details of proposed mitigation measures are presented in the EM&CP.
Upstate will develop appropriate construction plans for active agriculture fields, in consultation
with a qualified Agriculture and Soil Conservation Specialist/Inspector (Agriculture Specialist), as
recommended in the Pipeline Right-of-Way Construction Project guidance document (NYSDAM
1997).
Compliance with the best management practices and mitigation measures detailed in the EM&CP
in Appendix D will avoid or minimize impacts to physical resources along the upland transmission
route. Compliance will be overseen during construction by qualified environmental inspectors.
4.11.3 Existing Conditions - Subaquatic Transmission Line
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c), this section describes the
geophysical and geochemical characteristics, and the sediment transport dynamics for the
subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route, which runs from Galloo Island to Henderson, New
York. Potential impacts and measures to mitigate those impacts on physical resources are
described.
The information for this section was obtained through a combination of field studies, laboratory
analysis, and hydrodynamic modeling performed by sub-contractors on behalf of Upstate. An
integrated geophysical and geotechnical investigation was conducted by Ocean Surveys Inc. to
evaluate water depths, seabed morphology and sub-seabed stratigraphy during the summer of
2008. Sediment samples from 17 vibracores were analyzed for bulk physical and bulk chemical

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 102

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

properties by GeoTesting and Alpha Analytical (respectively). Applied Science Associates, Inc.
performed analytical and numerical modeling assessments, to predict the concentration and
subsequent cumulative lake floor deposition of suspended sediment introduced into the water
column during the jet-plow installation and mechanical dredging associated with HDD.
A detailed summary of the methods and findings for the field studies and laboratory analyses are
provided in the Subaquatic Cable Route Field Evaluations Report in Appendix G.
Ocean Surveys Inc.s geophysical and geotechnical investigation report entitled Geophysical &
Geotechnical Investigations Upstate NY Power Corp. Electric Transmission Line Lake Ontario is
located in Appendix H.
Applied Science Associates, Inc.s sediment transport model report entitled Sediment Dispersion
Modeling from Cable Burial Activities in Lake Ontario, 23 December 2008 is provided in Appendix
U.
4.11.3.1 Geophysical Survey
A comprehensive geophysical survey of the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route was
conducted to evaluate route-specific conditions. The survey included 100% remote sensing
coverage of the lakebed along the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route from Galloo
Island (STA 0+00) to Henderson (STA 478+71). Five (5) survey tracklines were run along
and parallel to the preferred centerline of the Proposed Route (Figure 1 in Appendix H). A
400-foot wide corridor was surveyed with survey lines spaced at approximately 100-foot
intervals. As a means of providing quality control for the survey, numerous tielines
(tracklines oriented perpendicular to the primary lines) were also investigated.
In general, the findings of the geophysical survey were:

Lakebed elevations along the survey corridor range from 246 feet NAVD88 at the
landfalls to 150 feet NAVD88 in the middle of the Black River Channel near STA 380+00
(at water depths of 0 to 96 feet, respectively).

The lakebed within the surveyed route corridor can be characterized into two geologic
categories. A Type 1 lakebed indicates unconsolidated sediments, while a Type 2
lakebed indicates rock, coarse till, or bedrock.

Subbottom acoustic profiling suggests that varying thicknesses of unconsolidated


sediments are present along the majority of the route, although there are areas where
acoustic basement (interpreted upper surface of rock or glacial till) is exposed on the
lakebed, particularly off the northeast tip of Stony Island.

A linear side scan target was identified crossing the Proposed Route at STA 471+30
(approximately 740 feet from the Henderson landfall) that corresponds with a possible 15
kV electric submarine cable. A large magnetic anomaly was also detected which
indicates that the cable may be energized

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 103

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

No additional significant side scan targets or magnetic anomalies were detected along
the Proposed Route.

A detailed summary of the geophysical investigation methods and findings are provided in
the Subaquatic Cable Route Field Evaluations Report (Appendix G).
4.11.3.2 Geotechnical Investigation
A geotechnical investigation was conducted along the subaquatic portion of the Proposed
Route, to characterize the bulk physical and chemical sediment conditions. Sampling and
analysis of the 17 vibracores advanced as part of the investigation were performed in
accordance with sampling protocols approved by NYSDEC (Attachment A of Appendix G).
Locations of the vibracores are shown in Figure 1 of Appendix G.
In summary, the findings of the geotechnical investigation were:

Full target penetration to 9 feet below the sediment/water interface was achieved at 11
of the 17 vibracore locations.

Lakebed sediments were classified as clay, based analysis in Attachment E in Appendix


G.

All sediment samples (with the exception of VC-08-01, VC-08-07, and VC-08-08) had
moisture contents above their respective liquid limits, which indicates that the materials
would behave mechanically like a liquid. Vibracores VC-08-01, VC-08-07, and VC-08-08
have moisture contents above their respective plastic limits, which indicates the material
behaves mechanically like a plastic.

Bulk chemical testing results indicate the concentrations of detected compounds within
sediments are below NYSDECs applicable Class A thresholds (no appreciable
contamination) at 10 of the 17 vibracore locations (see Appendix G).

Concentrations within Class B thresholds were identified only in surficial sediments (0 to


1 foot below the sediment/water interface) at the remaining seven locations.

Concentrations within Class B thresholds were identified in deeper sediment at one


vibracore location (VC-08-08 off the northeast tip of Stony Island) in a sample
composited between 0 and 4.4 feet below the sediment/water interface.

The Class C threshold was exceeded for pesticides (sum of DDT, DDD, DDE) in one
surficial sample (0 to 1 foot below the sediment/water interface) in vibracore VC-08-06,
east-northeast of Stony Island. Concentrations of these pesticides did not exceed Class
C thresholds in sediment samples collected from vibracores on either side of VC-08-06
(at distances of 3,000 to 3,750 feet away), indicating the contamination may not be
pervasive.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 104

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

A detailed summary of the geotechnical investigation including core photos, core logs, and
tables of analytical results are provided in the Subaquatic Cable Route Field Evaluations
Report (Appendix G).
4.11.3.3 Sediment Transport Model
Applied Science Associates, Inc. conducted numerical simulations to assess the anticipated
sediment dispersion and subsequent deposition from the proposed jet-plow and HDD
operations associated with the installation of the subaquatic transmission line (Appendix U).
Using hydrodynamic model inputs, such as water depths and current information, analytical
results of sediment sizes, and estimates of the initial sediment load from the jet plow and
HDD operation, the numerical model was used to simulate the movement and relative water
column concentration above ambient conditions of suspended sediment as it is transported
by currents and ultimately deposited on the lakebed.
In general, the sediment transport model predicts:

Jet-plow embedment will likely generate a suspended sediment plume of >100 mg/L
along the cable route and cover an estimated area of approximately 541 acres for 20
minutes after the jet-plow passes. After three hours no sediment concentrations will
likely exceed 50 mg/L. The water column will return to pre-construction conditions
within approximately 24 hours.

Jet-plow embedment will likely result in sediment accumulation over an estimated area of
approximately 168 acres at 0.5 mm thickness and an estimated area of 17.7 acres at 1
mm thickness.

Dredging at the HDD exit points (in the absence of any mitigation efforts such as the
proposed cofferdams) will likely result in a suspended sediment plume with
concentrations of >100 mg/L over an estimated area of approximately one acre for 60
minutes at the HDD exit point offshore of Henderson, and approximately one acre for 20
minutes offshore of Galloo Island. Pre-construction water column conditions will be
present within 24 hours.

Dredging at the HDD exit points (in the absence of any mitigation efforts such as the
proposed cofferdams) will result in estimated sediment accumulation over an area of
approximately 0.1 acres at 1 mm thickness.

4.11.3.4 Hydrography
In general, lakebed elevations along the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route range
from 246 feet NAVD88 at the landfalls to 148 feet NAVD88 in the middle of the Black River
Channel near STA 380+00 (at water depths of 0 to 98 feet, respectively). Lakebed slopes
were less than 1% along the majority of the subaquatic route. Steeper slopes were only
observed along the easternmost section of the route in the vicinity of the Henderson, New

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 105

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

York landfall. In this area, lakebed slopes of approximately 2% were measured from the
shoreline to approximately 3,600 feet offshore.
From the western landfall at Galloo Island (STA 0+00) to STA 130+00 (just north of Stony
Island), a minimum elevation of 157 feet (water depth of 90 feet) was recorded in the middle
of a low, relatively flat basin known as Stony Basin. From the Stony Basin eastward, the
lakebed rises slightly as it passes north of Stony Island and then slopes back down into the
Black River Channel (located between Stony Island and Stony Point). The minimum elevation
measured along the entire subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route ROW was 148 feet
(water depth of 98 feet), recorded in the middle of the Black River Channel near STA
380+00.
4.11.3.5 Lakebed Sediments
Unconsolidated clays predominate along the subaquatic portion of the Proposed Route.
Geophysical data indicate that these unconsolidated sediments are either not present or
thinly cover bedrock and/or coarse glacial till near both landfalls and near the northern end
of Stony Island. Shallow vibracore refusals occurred at approximately 3.5 feet below the
water/sediment interface at VC-08-01 off the Henderson landfall, between 4 and 6.5 feet at
VC-08-06, VC-08-07 and VC-08-08 (all three off the northeast tip of Stony Island), and
approximately 7 feet at VC-08-15 and VC-08-17, off the Galloo Island landfall. The remaining
vibracores achieved full target penetration to nine feet below the water/sediment interface.
Results of the bulk physical analyses of sediments collected during the geotechnical
investigation indicate that the majority of the lakebed at the vibracore locations behaves
mechanically as a fluid, given that the moisture content is higher than the liquid limit. Three
of the 17 vibracores (VC-08-01, VC-08-07, & VC-08-08), just off the Henderson landfall and
off the northeast tip of Stony Island have moisture contents below the liquid limits but above
the respective plastic limits, which indicates the material at those locations behaves
mechanically like a plastic.
Results of the bulk chemical analysis of sediments collected during the geotechnical
investigation indicate that the majority of the lakebed sediments at those locations contain
no appreciable contamination (i.e. measured contaminant levels are below the Class A
thresholds as defined by NYSDEC; see Attachment A of Appendix G). Concentrations within
Class B thresholds were identified in surficial sediments (0 to 1 foot below the
sediment/water interface) at 7 vibracore locations, primarily for pesticides, some metals, PCB
aroclors and mercury. Concentrations within Class B thresholds were identified in deeper
sediment at one vibracore location (VC-08-08) in a composite sample collected between 0
and 4.4 feet below the sediment/water interface. The Class C threshold for pesticides (sum
of DDT, DDD, DDE) was exceeded in the surficial sample (0 to 1 foot below the
sediment/water interface) in vibracore VC-08-06.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 106

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.11.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Subaquatic Transmission Line


The use of low-impact jet plow embedment technologies for the Subaquatic Transmission Line
installation in unconsolidated sediments, combined with the short-term duration of these
activities and adherence to agreed upon in-water work windows will serve as appropriate
mitigation and avoidance of potential Project-related impacts.
Jet plow embedment technology is designed to reduce the volume of material disturbed during
cable installation and the duration of disturbance when compared to traditional dredge and
backfill operations. The jet plow embedment method also minimizes turbidity associated with resuspension of disturbed sediments within a trench cut. The majority of in situ sediment volume
will remain within the limits of the trench wall, and thus not be introduced into the water column
above the trench. The natural movement of sediment will restore bottom contours along the
Subaquatic Transmission Line with time. Therefore, active restoration of bottom contours after
jet plow embedment will not be required.
In the event typical cable burial depth is not achieved in an area other than a cable crossing due
to geologic or topographic features, the actual cable depth will be reported to NYSDPS and
NYSDEC, together with a plan and schedule for achieving an adequate protection level (such as
placement of concrete mattresses over the cable) given the location.
The linear side scan target that was identified during the geophysical survey crossing the
Proposed Route at STA 471+30 (approximately 740 feet from the Henderson landfall) may
correspond to a possible 15 kV electric submarine cable. A large magnetic anomaly was also
detected which indicates that the cable may be energized. The presence or absence of this cable
will be confirmed prior to installation of the Subaquatic Transmission Cable.
The numerical modeling analyses of sediment suspension and dispersion predict that suspended
sediment concentrations induced by jet-plow installation of the cable and dredging near the HDD
exit points will largely be concentrated near the lake bottom and will return to ambient conditions
within approximately 24 hours following installation. Within 100 meters of the operating jet
plow, both maximum and mean concentrations of suspended sediments are predicted to be less
than 125 mg/L. Sediment deposited on the lakebed resulting from the cable embedment is
predicted to remain within a corridor along the cable route and cover an area of 168 acres at 0.5
mm thick and an area of 17.7 acres at 1 mm thick.
The lateral maximum extent of the 100 mg/L suspended sediment plume associated with the
HDD operations is predicted to 12 meters from the cofferdam locations (assuming no cofferdams
are utilized to contain suspended sediments). Sediment deposits greater than 1 mm would cover
an estimated area of 0.1 acres at each HDD site according to model predictions. The model
predictions assume that no mitigation measures, such as the proposed cofferdams, are employed
and therefore represent worst-case conditions.
A cofferdam will be installed around the HDD exit points to minimize sediment dispersion during
construction operations. One side of the cofferdam will remain open to allow access of the jet-

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 107

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

plow vessel. Model results described above predict dispersion conditions with no cofferdam
present, and therefore dispersion will be less than predicted by the model at the HDD locations.
To restore the bottom contours in the dredged areas within the temporary cofferdams, clean
sand will be backfilled after the Subaquatic Transmission Line is installed.
The selected installation technology, together with these proposed measures, will minimize and
mitigate potential impacts due to disturbance of subaquatic physical resources.
4.12 Hydrology
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c)(2), this section describes the water
resources present in the vicinity of the Proposed Route ROW and the proposed substations.
Hydrologic characteristics reviewed encompass surface and groundwater features, including sole
source aquifers. Resources used to compile the information in this section include the NYSDEC
Streams Classification database, orthophotographs of the Proposed Route, and Cornell University
Geospatial Information Repository datasets for roads, digital elevation models, and electronic data
files available from their website. Potential measures to mitigate construction impacts on these
resources are also described as appropriate. Descriptions of the Project locations are presented in
Exhibit 2, Location of Facilities, and Exhibit 4, Section 4.2, Project Description.
4.12.1 NYSDEC Stream Classification System
The NYSDEC classifies surface and groundwater in 6 NYCRR Part 701. The Proposed Route
crosses, or runs adjacent to streams, rivers, and other water bodies that are primarily classified
as Class C. The best usage of Class C waters is fishing. By definition, these waters shall be
suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and
secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.
Class C waters can further be designated as (T) for the ability to support a trout population or as
(TS) for the ability to support trout spawning. Working in or near these streams will result in
additional requirements necessary to protect these sensitive fish resources. Streams designated
as C(T) and above are considered protected streams and are subject to the provisions of New
York States Protection of Waters regulations.
4.12.2 Existing Conditions
4.12.2.1 Streams, Rivers, and Creeks
Within the Towns of Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, and Richland, the Proposed Route crosses the
Sandy Creek, Skinner Creek, Lindsey Creek, Little Sandy Creek, the Salmon River, and
numerous other smaller creeks and tributaries.
The Proposed Route ROW crosses
approximately 26 individual streams, rivers, and tributaries, with some streams, rivers, and
tributaries crossed at multiple locations. Therefore, there are a total of 53 stream crossings
within the Proposed Route ROW (Table 4.12.2-1). One of the more significant streams
crossed by the Proposed Route is the Salmon River. The Project proposes to cross the
Salmon River along the segment referred to as the Lower Salmon River, which is located in

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 108

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

the Town of Richland, Oswego County. This crossing is in close proximity to where
Interstate Route 81 also crosses over the Salmon River.
All surface water bodies located within the 2,400-foot wide study area, (i.e., 1,200 feet on
each side of the Proposed Route centerline) are listed in Table 4.12.2-2, which includes
approximately 16 individual streams that meander in and out of the 2,400-foot study area, so
the corridor intercepts them 93 times.
Two individual Class C streams (Sage Creek and one of its tributaries) pass through the
2,400-foot study area delineated for the Mexico Substation. No streams run near the Galloo
Island substation (Table 4.12.2-3).
4.12.2.2 Sole Source Aquifers and Public Drinking Water Supply Aquifers
The EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least fifty percent
(50%) of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. A sole source
aquifer designation protects drinking water supplies in areas with few or no alternative
sources to the ground water resource, and where if contamination occurred, using an
alternative source would be extremely expensive. The designation protects an area's
groundwater resource by requiring EPA to review all proposed projects within the designated
area that will receive federal financial assistance. All proposed projects receiving federal
funds are subject to review to ensure they do not endanger the groundwater source. The
Proposed Route ROW does not cross any EPA-designated sole source aquifers.
The State of New York has implemented a groundwater protection program that defines key
aquifers as Primary based upon the actual productivity of the aquifer or its potential for
future use. During the permitting process, a project located in an area designated as a
Primary aquifer would need to address potential groundwater impacts. The Proposed Route
does not cross any NYSDEC-designated Primary Water Supply Aquifers; however, the
Proposed Route traverses or runs adjacent to other smaller, non-primary aquifers as
identified by NYSDEC.
4.12.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation
4.12.3.1 Streams Rivers and Creeks
Project activities have the potential to impact streams and rivers at any point where the
Proposed Route crosses a stream. Streams that parallel the Proposed Route may also be
impacted by Project activities in areas where the stream will be close to construction areas.
Project construction activities may impact surface water bodies in a variety of ways.
Potential impacts will be directly related to the location and construction methodologies used
during the installation of the Project structures. Exact construction locations will be
developed during the Projects detailed engineering phase. This will include construction
methodologies to be employed at each location. As this information is developed, site

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 109

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

surveys will be conducted to determine the potential for site-specific impacts, and plans will
be developed to mitigate any potential impacts. Detailed mitigation techniques and sitespecific plans will be included in the EM&CP (Appendix D). This will include all necessary
coordination and consultation with the appropriate local, state, and federal regulatory
agencies.
Overhead crossings of streams will occur along the length of the Proposed Route. The
distance between Project structures used to support the conductors will typically range
between 400 feet and 600 feet; therefore, there is flexibility in the placement of the
individual structures to allow for the minimization of potential stream crossing impacts by
placing the structures at points that will minimize water quality impacts.
Stream and creek crossings will likely require installation of temporary access roads which
will likely be accomplished using log corduroy construction techniques and portable metal
roadways to minimize disturbance (Refer to Section 4.13.3 for discussion of construction
impacts and mitigation techniques for wetlands).
All structure locations will require clearing and grubbing of the construction area. This will
increase the potential for sediment runoff in locations near streams. All construction areas
that occur near a stream will utilize temporary barriers such as silt fences and hay bales to
prevent siltation from entering the water resource. These barriers will typically remain in
place and be maintained until construction and re-vegetation is complete. Measures for
erosion and sediment control are presented in the EM&CP (Appendix D) with this application.
The size of the excavation for foundations will depend on the type of structure and type of
soil. The approximate diameter for a typical tangent structure foundation would range
between 5.0 and 7.0 feet and the approximate depth would range between 16 and 22 feet.
Near stream areas where soil spoils cannot be stored and/or removed, and in areas that
require location of spoil piles close to surface waters, the Project will utilize mitigation
techniques such as siltation fences, hay bales, and temporary coverings of the piles to
minimize the introduction of sediment into the streams.
There will be approximately 22 crossings of 5 streams that are classified as trout and troutspawning streams. Consistent with Project activities in areas of sensitive species (see
Section 4.7 Natural Resources), construction and maintenance activities will be conducted
in such a manner as to minimize any impacts to these high resource value areas. Mitigation
techniques such as water flow monitoring/stabilization, construction timing, and water
filtration will be used as necessary to aid in the protection of these resources. Specific
mitigation plans for these areas will be developed following identification of potentially
impacted areas in the Projects detailed engineering phase. Any specific mitigation needs for
these areas will be included in the EM&CP.
Due to the proximity of the Proposed Route to surface waters, some Project structures may
be located in areas of shallow groundwater and in areas of surficial and sub-surface water
run-off into streams. To avoid additional siltation into streams, dewatering activities will be
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 110

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

conducted throughout the construction phase. All collected water will be disposed in such a
manner as to control sedimentation and siltation. This may include collection and pretreatment (sediment filtration, etc.) of water prior to disposal. Re-introduction of water into
streams will be conducted in accordance with appropriate regulatory requirements. Water
discharged into vegetative areas will use appropriate control systems (i.e., energy dispersion
baffles) to prevent soil erosion. (See EM&CP Outline Appendix D)
Operation and maintenance of the Project will result in the potential for periodic impacts to
streams. Impacts during this phase of the Project may result from vegetation management
activities, permanent placement of maintenance roads and Project structure maintenance.
There are areas along the Proposed Route specifically designated as No Access Road Areas
to indicate where access road construction will not occur and temporary access roads will not
be allowed. These areas coincide with the presence of sensitive ecological resources that
require avoidance of the potential impacts associated with the construction and use of access
roads. Additional specific mitigation techniques to address these construction, operation, and
maintenance activities will be developed in the EM&CP as maintenance and operation
parameters are further developed. (See the EM&CP Outline in Appendix D).
4.12.3.2 Sole Source Aquifers and Public Drinking Water Supply Aquifers
The Proposed Route does not cross or run adjacent to any sole source aquifers or NYSDEC
designated primary aquifers or designated public drinking water supply aquifers. It does
traverse or run adjacent to some small non-primary aquifers which are not EPA-designated
sole source aquifers, or NYSDEC-designated public drinking water supply aquifers.
Construction activities that will occur in these areas are described in Exhibit E-1. Subsurface
construction activities necessary to install structure foundations will occur at a depth well
above the aquifers, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project.
4.13 Wetlands
In accordance with PSL 122(1)(c) and 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c), this section describes the existing
wetlands in the vicinity of the Proposed Route, including the substations on Galloo Island and in the
Town of Mexico. Potential measures to mitigate construction impacts on these resources are also
described as appropriate. Descriptions of the Project locations are presented in Exhibit 2, Location of
Facilities, and Exhibit 4, Section 4.2, Project Description.
USACE and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulate
wetlands along the Proposed Route. Freshwater wetlands are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Freshwater wetlands commonly
include marshes, swamps, bogs, and fens.
4.13.1 New York State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands
New York State regulates freshwater wetlands under Article 24 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, known as the Freshwater Wetlands Act. In general, NYSDEC regulates
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 111

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

wetlands that are greater than 12.4 acres in size. In some cases, smaller wetlands of unusual
local importance are also under state jurisdiction. The State also regulates a 100-foot adjacent
area to provide a wetland buffer zone.
NYSDEC has mapped the approximate boundaries of state regulated wetlands in New York.
These maps are the regulatory vehicles by which wetlands are placed under state jurisdiction and
only those wetlands shown on the official regulatory maps are under state jurisdiction. Wetlands
provide different functions and benefits such as flood control, critical habitat for fish and wildlife,
recreational activities, and act as a natural filter for ground and surface waters. The Freshwater
Wetlands Act requires that NYSDEC rank wetlands in one of four classes ranging from Class 1,
which provide the most benefits, to Class 4, which provide the fewest benefits.
4.13.1.1 Existing Conditions - Substation Site (Galloo Island)
NYSDEC Wetland maps were reviewed for Galloo Island. Two state regulated wetlands were
identified within 2,400 feet of the proposed substation structure on Galloo Island. As shown
in Table 4.13.1-2 and the aerial photographs in Appendix B, these wetlands include GL-2
(245 acres - Class 3), and GL-3 (24 acres Class 3).
The Galloo Island substation does not cross any state regulated wetlands.
4.13.1.2 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Galloo Island)
NYSDEC Wetland maps were reviewed for Galloo Island. Three state regulated wetlands
were identified within a 2,400 foot wide study area (1,200 feet on each side of the Proposed
Route centerline) as shown in Table 4.13.1-1 and the aerial photographs in Appendix B.
These wetlands include GL-1 (26.9 acres - Class 2), GL-2 (97.2 acres - Class 3), and GL-3
(8.3 acres Class 3). The Proposed Route centerline crosses wetland GL-1 for <0.1 miles.
The Proposed Route crosses approximately 1.2 acres of state regulated wetlands.
Specifically, the Proposed Route crosses 1.1 acres of wetland GL-1 and approximately 0.1
acres of GL-2.
4.13.1.3 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Mainland)
NYSDEC Wetland maps were reviewed for Jefferson and Oswego Counties. Fourteen state
regulated wetlands were identified within a 2,400 foot wide study area (1,200 feet on each
side of the Proposed Route centerline) as shown in Table 4.13.1-1 and the aerial
photographs in Appendix B. These wetlands range in size from 0.04 acres to 36.1 acres.
None of these wetlands are Class 1 or Class 4, seven are Class 2, and seven are Class 3.
Approximately 0.4 miles of the Proposed Route centerline cross seven state regulated
wetlands at nine locations, which are identified in Table 4.13.1-1. Wetland MX-21 (36.1
acres) in the Towns of Richland and Mexico, MX-8 (34.82 acres) in the Town of Mexico, MX12 (30.38 acres) in the Town of Richland, RI-31 (17.6 acres) in the Town of Richland, and

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 112

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

PI-15 (17.39 acres) in the Town of Richland are the five largest wetlands that the Proposed
Route crosses.
The Proposed Route ROW crosses approximately 7.61 acres of state regulated wetlands.
Two-thirds, or 4.58 acres, of the wetlands encountered by the Route are located in the Town
of Richland. Wetlands are also present in the Towns of Mexico (2.48 acres) and Sandy Creek
(0.55 acres). No wetlands are present along the proposed route in the Town of Henderson.
4.13.1.4 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Mexico, New York)
NYSDEC wetlands maps were reviewed within 2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation site in
Mexico, New York (Table 4.13.1-2). Two state regulated wetlands were identified within
2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation property boundary. As shown in Table 4.13.1-2 and the
aerial photographs in Appendix B, these wetlands include MX-8 (23 acres - Class 2), and MX11 (2 acres Class 2).
There were no state regulated wetlands identified within the Mexico substation site property
boundary.
4.13.2 Federally Regulated Section 404 Wetlands
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 10 permits are required for
structures located in navigable waters and Section 404 permits are required for dredge and fill
activities in waters of the U.S. The USACE administers the permit program under Sections 10
and 404. There is no minimum size for wetlands that are regulated under federal statute. If an
area meets the delineation criteria outlined in the 1987 USACE Delineation Manual it is under
Federal jurisdiction. A Section 404 Individual Permit will be required prior to the onset of Project
construction. Wetlands regulated by Section 404 will be identified during the EM&CP phase of
the Project as desktop maps are not available. Determination of Section 404 jurisdictional
wetland boundaries will be based on field studies conducted by a qualified wetland scientist or
biologist during preparation of the EM&CP. This will be performed with the benefit of knowledge
of line design, specific structure placement, and access needs. During development of the
EM&CP, appropriate details will be obtained to support a permit application with the USACE for
the necessary federal approval of construction within waters of the U.S.
NWI maps do not delineate wetland boundaries for regulatory purposes, but have been
developed to provide an inventory of the total wetland resource of a region. These maps show
the approximate wetland boundaries and characterize the associated hydrology and vegetation.
4.13.2.1 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Galloo Island)
NWI wetlands maps were reviewed within a 2,400-foot radius of the Galloo Island Substation
site. No NWI wetlands were identified within this study area.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 113

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.13.2.2 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Galloo Island)


NWI maps were reviewed for Galloo Island (Jefferson County). Approximately 158 acres of
NWI wetlands were identified within a 2,400 foot wide study area (1,200 feet on each side of
the Proposed Route centerline) as shown in Table 4.13.2-1. These wetlands range in size
from 0.08 acres to 45.34 acres. The majority, or approximately 66.8% of these wetlands are
forested wetlands. Approximately 16.9% are scrub-shrub wetlands, 8.9% are mixed scrubshrub and emergent wetlands, 5.8% are mixed scrub-shrub and unconsolidated bottom, and
1.6% are emergent wetlands.
Based upon a review of available NWI mapping, 0.48 miles of the Proposed Route centerline
crosses USACE-regulated wetlands at 9 locations on Galloo Island (Table 4.13.2-1). The
Proposed Route on Galloo Island encompasses a total of 9.5 acres of wetlands, of which
approximately 3.4 acres are forested wetlands, 3.0 acres are scrub-shrub with emergent
wetlands, 2.7 acres are scrub-shrub wetlands, and 0.4 acres are emergent wetlands.
4.13.2.3 Existing Conditions Proposed Route (Mainland)
NWI maps were reviewed for Jefferson and Oswego Counties. Approximately 267.4 acres of
federally-regulated wetlands were identified within a 2,400 foot wide study area (1,200 feet
on each side of the Proposed Route centerline) as shown in Table 4.13.2-1. These wetlands
range in size from 0.01 acres to 42.5 acres. Approximately 29% of these wetlands are
unconsolidated bottom, 18% are scrub-shrub wetlands, 14% are forested wetland, 12% are
emergent wetland, and 5% are riverine wetlands. The remaining 21% are a mixture of the
aforementioned wetland types.
Based upon a review of available NWI mapping, 0.57 miles of the Proposed Route centerline
crosses USACE-regulated wetlands at 18 locations in Jefferson and Oswego Counties (Table
4.13.2-1). The Proposed Route encompasses a total of 10.2 acres of wetlands, of which
approximately 2.3 acres are scrub-shrub wetlands, 1.8 acres are emergent wetlands, 1.7
acres are riverine wetlands, approximately 1.6 acres are forested wetlands, 1.6 acres are
forested with scrub-shrub wetlands, 0.8 acres are unconsolidated bottom, and 0.6 acres are
scrub-shrub with emergent wetlands.
4.13.2.4 Existing Conditions Substation Site (Mexico, New York)
NWI wetlands maps were reviewed within a 2,400-foot radius of the Mexico substation site
(Table 4.13.2-2). Nine (9) wetlands were identified within 2,400 feet of the Mexico
substation site boundary. Of these, three (3) are unconsolidated bottom, three (3) are
forested, two (2) are scrub-shrub, and one (1) is emergent/scrub-shrub. The total acreage
of these wetlands is approximately 60 acres. Of these 60 acres, 37.7 acres are forested,
19.2 acres are scrub-shrub, 1.7 acres are unconsolidated bottom, and 1.5 acres are scrubshrub/emergent.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 114

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.13.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation


4.13.3.1 Overhead Construction
Impacts to wetlands from overhead transmission line construction typically result from
clearing of the right of way, access road construction, and structure foundation construction.
To mitigate these impacts efforts will be made during final line design to locate structures out
of wetlands, to avoid construction of access roads through wetlands, and, if structures must
be located in a wetland, to select foundation types that will minimize impacts. Any clearing
of vegetation will be done selectively and cut vegetation will generally be disposed of on site
in upland areas in order to minimize impacts. In addition use of tracked vehicles and/or
hand cutting may be specified to further minimize impacts.
Approximately 8.81_acres of wetlands under New York State jurisdiction fall within overhead
portions of the Proposed Route.
No permanent access roads will be constructed within wetland areas. However, temporary
access roads may be required to access structure locations. Depending on site conditions,
geotextile fabric or swamp mats, which distribute the weight of construction equipment, may
be used to minimize impacts to vegetation when accessing structure locations. Appropriate
mitigation measures, such as use of timber mats or fabric and gravel roads, will be employed
together with procedures to ensure that drainage patterns are maintained. Techniques such
as log corduroy construction and portable metal roadways may be used to minimize
disturbance. Native soils may be used for construction in some areas, as required, so as to
minimize the use of imported materials. Temporary roads may utilize geotextile as a base, as
appropriate, to facilitate the removal of any added material once the access road is no longer
needed.
The location and type of all wetland crossings will be detailed in the EM&CP. Upstate will
work with the electric and gas transmission line companies to utilize, to the extent possible,
existing access along existing ROWs.
Preliminary structure placement along the Proposed Route was assessed in order to complete
the visual impact assessment (Section 4.8 and Appendix O) However, since detailed field
investigations and final design have not been completed, specific structure placement has not
yet been determined and the following estimates of wetland structure locations are subject to
change. Based on the preliminary structure placement, a total of 11 structures would be
located within state jurisdictional wetland boundaries along the overhead portion of the
Proposed Route. Of these, six structures would be located in the Town of Hounsfield on
Galloo Island and five would be located on the mainland Proposed Route, including one in
the Town of Henderson, one in the Town of Ellisburg, two in the Town of Richland, and one
in the Town of Mexico. The location and type of all wetland crossings and site specific
methods to mitigate impacts will be detailed in the EM&CP once structure placements have
been finalized.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 115

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.13.3.2 Overhead Transmission Line Vegetation Clearing


The Proposed Route will have a 150-foot wide ROW zone where vegetation will be selectively
cleared for construction and maintenance purposes. All vegetation within the 45 degree
envelope and no closer than the prescribed 50 feet from each target point and maturing less
than 50 feet in height will be allowed to regenerate (Figure 4.4-10). Routine ROW clearing of
trees and shrubs will be performed to provide unimpeded access to structure work sites and
to prevent any trees from becoming a hazard to the operational integrity of the line.
Clearing by mechanized equipment will be used where possible; however, in environmentally
sensitive areas, hand clearing may be required. Where possible, native wetland vegetation
that requires clearing will be cut just above ground level to allow regeneration from the
roots. If invasive species are present, the roots as well as all stems, leaves and seeds may be
removed. Cut vegetation will be removed and disposed of at an appropriate upland location.
4.13.3.3 Underground Construction
No areas of underground construction are anticipated within state regulated or NWI
wetlands. Underground construction in wetlands will be examined, as necessary, during
preparation of the EM&CP.
4.13.3.4 Underground Transmission Line Vegetation Clearing
No areas of wetland vegetation clearing associated with the underground portion of the
Proposed Route are anticipated within state regulated or NWI wetlands. Wetland vegetation
clearing along underground portions of the Proposed Route will be examined, as necessary,
during preparation of the EM&CP.
4.13.3.5 Substation Sites
There are no state regulated or NWI wetlands located within the boundaries of either the
Galloo Island or Mexico substation sites. However, there are two state regulated and nine
NWI wetlands within 2,400 feet of the Mexico substation site (Tables 4.13.1-2 and 4.13.2-2).
All wetlands adjacent to the construction area of disturbance will be protected with silt
fencing, hay barriers, and sedimentation basins.
4.13.3.6 Mitigation for Construction in and Adjacent to Wetlands
The Project will be designed to avoid wetlands to the extent possible given the constraints
that dictate location of structures, foundation size and type, and access needs. The exact
number of structures located in wetlands, and access requirements will be determined during
the detailed design stage of the Project and presented in the EM&CP. At that time specific
avoidance and mitigation measures will be tailored to individual landscape and construction
situations. Example mitigation measures are described in the Expanded EM&CP outline in
Appendix D.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 116

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

The direct impacts of wetland crossings will be minimized by utilizing existing crossings
wherever practicable. The Expanded EM&CP in Appendix D addresses crossing techniques,
equipment restrictions, and erosion and sedimentation control measures that will be utilized
to reduce impacts to wetlands. Upstate will employ NYSPSC approved environmental
protection measures wherever the resource cannot be avoided.
Impacts from construction adjacent to wetland resources will be minimized by using the
following construction techniques and best management practices:

Sediment and Siltation Control - Wetlands adjacent the Proposed Route will be protected
from indirect impacts from construction activities by utilizing various erosion and
sediment control measures, including silt fences and/or hay bales placed between
wetland boundaries and construction areas, reseeding, geofabric installation, temporary
drainage swales or dikes, and excavation dewatering and surface water flow sediment
traps or basins.

Wetlands that are temporarily disturbed will be restored to their original grade and
seeded with a NYSPSC, NYSDEC, and USACE approved wetland seed mix.

At locations where excessive groundwater is encountered, de-watering equipment may


be used to provide a dry excavation to permit the foundation to be constructed. Water
removed from the excavation will be directed to the nearest natural watercourse with
measures to minimize siltation such as percolating water into rail cars lined with filter
fabric, pumping into sediment bags or straw-bale dikes located in the water flow. Where
no natural watercourse exists in reasonable proximity to the excavation, the water will be
pumped onto vegetated areas via an energy dissipating baffle discharge and allowed to
drain naturally into the soil.

Specific wetland crossing locations, descriptions, and techniques will be developed during the
EM&CP process. This process will follow:

Environmental Management and Construction Standards and Practices for Underground


Transmission and Distribution Facilities in New York State (New York State Department of
Public Service 2003); and

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Federal Energy


Regulatory Commission 2003).

Where impacts cannot be avoided, best management practices, activity restrictions,


maintenance of vegetative buffers, and special crossing techniques will be employed to
minimize erosion and sedimentation and associated impacts on aquatic organisms.
4.13.3.7 Site Clean-up and Restoration
Wetlands temporarily disturbed during construction will be restored to their original grade.
The disturbed site will be restored by scarifying any compacted areas and revegetating with

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 117

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

plants similar to those present before the disturbance. Restoration activities would be
conducted as part of the final phase of construction. Specific site clean up and restoration
measures will be detailed in the EM&CP.
4.14 Floodplains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which classifies flood zones for insurance and
floodplain management purposes, has prepared maps that designate certain areas according to their
expected frequency of flooding. The FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Digital Q3 Flood Data
contains the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Project area (1977-1992). This GIS coverage has
been reviewed to identify FEMA floodplain boundaries along the Proposed Route.
A station-by-station review of flood zones crossed by the Proposed Route is provided in Table 4.14-1.
The FEMA flood zone designations for the Proposed Route include the following:

A-zones: Second-most volatile Special Flood Hazard Area. This zone is usually located adjacent
to watercourses and is subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. Because detailed hydraulic
analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within
this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

AE-zones: Included in the second-most volatile group. These zones are subject to 100-year
flooding. In most instances, Base Flood Elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses
are shown at selected intervals within this zone.
Mandatory flood insurance purchase
requirements apply.

X-zones: Considered minimal risk areas outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain, areas of 1%
annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1%
annual chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile,
or areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by levees.

X500-zones: An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding


with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an
area protected by levees from 100-year flooding.

The Project does not fall within the most volatile zone designations (V and VE), which are
assigned by FEMA to areas inundated by 100-year flooding and with velocity hazard (wave action).
4.14.1 Existing Conditions
Four separate flood zone classifications are located within a 2,400-foot wide study area (1,200
feet on both sides of the Proposed Route centerline). As shown in Table 4.14-2, the greater
proportion (approximately 97%) of the study area for the route is located in the X zone. The
route also crosses through A and AE flood hazard zones, which are subject to 100-year flooding.
Less than 0.2% of the route crosses through X500 flood hazard zones.
Jefferson County

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 118

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

On Galloo Island, the Proposed Route runs approximately 2.6 miles overland and transitions to
underground for approximately 0.19 miles to the Lake Ontario shoreline. The more interior
portion of the Proposed Route is primarily through X zones (Stations 0-2) with only approximately
5 acres of AX flood hazard zone. Near Station 3, approximately 25 acres of A and 2.61 acres of
AX flood hazard zones are present within the Proposed Route compared to approximately 367
acres of X flood hazard zones.
In the Town of Henderson, the Proposed Route makes landfall and transitions to overhead
approximately 0.15 miles from the Lake Ontarios shoreline, which is an area designated as an AE
zone (Stations 0 and 1). It travels westward, predominantly through X zones (Stations 1 - 4)
except for the crossing of two small drainages to the lake that are A zone. The Proposed Route
parallels and then crosses Stony Creek and associated AE and X500 zones (Stations 5 - 6). For
the remainder of the distance the Proposed Route passes through the Town of Henderson, it is in
Zone X with the exception of the crossing of Zone A at Little Stony Creek (Stations 6 - 9). In the
Town of Ellisburg (Stations 9 22), the greater proportion of the route runs through X zones
with the exception of crossings of South Sandy Creek (Stations 15 16) and Bear Creek (Stations
16 17), which are associated with AE and A zones, respectively.
Oswego County
Through the Town of Sandy Creek, the Proposed Route generally runs in a north south
direction crossing several tributaries to Lake Ontario (Stations 22 28). It passes mostly through
X zones except for these stream crossings, which pass through an A zone (Station 24). In the
Town of Richland, the Proposed Route continues in a north south direction but makes a jog to
the east and then back again, crossing Interstate 81 twice, to avoid the Village of Pulaski
(Stations 28 39). The route crosses several tributaries to Lake Ontario and passes through X
and A zones (Stations 28 39), except for the segments that cross the Salmon River and one of
its tributaries (Station 31), which pass through A, AE and X500 zones. In the Town of Mexico,
the Proposed Route passes through X zones (Stations 39 43).
Substation Station Sites
The northern transition station will consist of the facilities to support the transition of the
transmission line from underground to overhead. It will be located in the Town of Henderson,
Jefferson County near the shores of Lake Ontario. The location of the transition station will fall
within an AE zone. The proposed interconnect substation in the Town of Mexico is located in an X
zone.
4.14.2 Environmental Effects
Construction of the transmission line will be completed, where possible, using existing
transportation and utility corridor access roads. In some areas, potential impacts may occur due
to the need for access road construction or improvements. For example, where it is necessary to
cross a flood hazard zone with an access road, placement of fill may be required to improve the
equipment weight bearing capacity of the road surface. In most instances, this would be for a

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 119

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

temporary road during construction and therefore would not be a permanent impact to the
floodplain. In areas where a permanent access road is required, this could result in altered
drainage patterns or a minor reduction in the capacity of the flood zone to retain water, possibly
resulting in the displacement of water to new areas. Roads will be designed to minimize the
alteration of existing drainage patterns. If any facilities such as concrete foundations or
transmission structures are located in the flood way, they may present a minor restriction to
water flow and have the potential to catch debris and cause a localized damming effect. In most
instances construction of structures in a floodway will be avoided.
In the area where the
transmission line is underground, the cables will be installed within PVC conduits encased in
concrete buried at a minimum of three feet beneath grade. The underground cable installation
will not result in altered drainage patterns or restrictions to overland flow.
4.14.3 Mitigation
Potential impacts to floodplain areas will be avoided or minimized by accessing susceptible areas
during normally dry periods of the year, making placement of fill within floodplains unnecessary.
Where this is not possible, specialized road construction techniques will be utilized. Use of low
ground pressure vehicles and minimal use of permanent fill will be given high priority during
design of construction access in flood-prone areas (A zones). However, roads will be constructed
in a manner sufficient to safely support ongoing operations and maintenance activities. The
design and installation of access roads during the construction phase will enable less disruption
of these areas during future maintenance activities. In addition, no work will take place in areas
that are inundated with flood waters. Such work will be deferred until flood waters recede.
As there will be no permanent change in topography within any designated floodplains and
transmission structure bases within floodplains will not have an impact on surface water flow, no
permanent negative impacts to the floodplains or other upstream/downstream properties are
expected from the construction or operation of the transmission facilities. Placement of
structures in floodways can typically be avoided by spanning the area. Transmission structures
located within floodplain areas will be designed such that they are in compliance with applicable
flood-related requirements such as: design to prevent floatation, lateral movement due to
hydrostatic or hydrodynamic forces; and possible protection from scouring.
No Equipment Access Areas and Restricted Activities Areas within floodplains will be shown on
the EM&CP Plan and Profile drawings. Specific floodplain crossing techniques will be developed
during the EM&CP process. The type and location of any access roads in floodplains will be
shown on the EM&CP Plan and Profile drawings.
4.15 Hazardous Materials
In accordance with 16 NYCRR 86.5(b) and (c), this section describes the existing hazardous materials
in the vicinity of the Proposed Route. A search of the EPA and NYSDEC hazardous material
databases was conducted to identify locations that may impact or be impacted by the Project. The
information for this section was obtained through literature review, online documentation, and review
of environmental regulatory agency databases.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 120

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.15.1 Existing Conditions Proposed Route


The NYSDEC and the EPA identify, monitor, and regulate sites that generate, store, and treat
hazardous materials. The NYSDEC and EPA also identify and oversee remediation of sites
contaminated with hazardous materials.
4.15.1.1 Contaminated Sites
The primary hazardous material issue of concern is the location of preexisting contaminated
sites. Any construction activity that may be near a site with soil or groundwater
contamination may require special design and construction procedures to protect the public,
workers, and the environment. To determine the potential Project impacts on waste
management areas, the EPA Regulated Facilities Database for EPA Region 2 and the NYSDEC
Environmental Site Remediation database, updated as of September 2008, were searched for
known contaminated areas along the Proposed Route.
The search identified a total of seven (7) sites located within the 2,400-foot wide study area
(1,200 feet on each side of the Proposed Route centerline) (Table 4.15-1). The information
available from the EPA Regulated Facilities database does not identify site boundaries and,
therefore, it is not possible to determine if the sites exist within the Proposed Route or within
the 2,400-foot wide study area. The EPA Regulated Facilities database represents these sites
with a single point, rather than with defined site boundaries. Without field verification, it is
not possible to determine the proximity of these sites to the Proposed Route and the 2,400foot wide study area. As part of the final EM&CP, field verification will determine the
potential for Project-related impacts and any mitigation strategies that will be necessary.
Approximate site locations are shown on the topographic map panels contained in Appendix
B.
The EPA Regulated Facilities database 3 includes sites in the following categories:

Aerometric Information Retrieval System/Aerometric Information Retrieval System


Facility Subsystem Permits in EPA Region 2 (Clean Air Act)

CERCLIS Facilities in EPA Region 2


Compensation, and Liability Act)

CERCLIS National Priority List sites in EPA Region 2

Permit Compliance System Pipes in EPA Region 2 (Clean Water Act)

Permit Compliance System Facilities in EPA Region 2

RCRA Permits in EPA Region 2: All Facilities

RCRA Permits in EPA Region 2: Hazardous Waste Generators

(Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

http://www.epa.gov/region02/gis/data.htm

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 121

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

RCRA Permits in EPA Region 2: Hazardous Waste Transporters

RCRA Permits in EPA Region 2: Treatment, Storage and/or Disposal Facilities

Toxic Release Inventory Reporting in EPA Region 2 (Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act)

Of the seven (7) sites identified as within the 2,400-foot wide study area, six (6) hold RCRA
permits. Four (4) of these are hazardous waste permits, and the other two (2) are
unspecified as to the permit type. There was one (1) Permit Compliance System facility,
Green Haven Community in the Town of Sandy Creek, which is within the study area.
According to the EPA website (2008), the Green Haven Community Permit Compliance
System pertains to sanitary pipe discharges into Blind Creek.
There are no CERCLIS sites or Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites within the 2,400-foot
wide study area, or 1,200 feet on each side of the Proposed Route centerline. Additionally,
the EPA CERCLIS database includes all sites that are identified on the National Priorities List,
which includes the most significant contaminated sites in the United States. A search of this
database did not identify any National Priority List sites within the search area.
Hazardous materials generated or used by the Project will be managed in accordance with all
State and Federal hazardous material and waste regulations and NYSDEC guidance. Specific
handling requirements will be dependent on the types and quantities of materials and wastes
generated during the Project construction phase. Due to the different construction methods
anticipated to be used, the types of wastes generated during Project construction will likely
vary based on the type of construction being undertaken (i.e., overhead or underground
construction) at any particular point. A detailed hazardous materials plan will be developed
for the EM&CP.
4.15.1.2 Hazardous Material Releases
The NYSDEC maintains a database of hazardous material releases. These releases include
petroleum-based contaminants (oil, gasoline, etc.) and other hazardous materials. The
database merges the inactive hazardous waste disposal sites and the hazardous material
release sites as a single category. The NYSDEC database was queried to identify releases
that occurred within the study area. This review of the database did not indicate any
hazardous material release sites within the 2,400-foot wide study area.
4.15.1.3 Hazardous Materials Management
The EPA requires sites that generate, store, treat or dispose of hazardous wastes/materials
or release hazardous constituents into the environment through permitted processes to
report this information as part of worker and community right-to-know programs. A search
of the Toxic Release Inventory and the RCRA database was made to identify areas that may
be the source of hazardous materials. A search of these databases indicates six (6) sites
within the 2,400-foot wide study area. Approximate site locations are shown on the

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 122

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

topographic map panels contained in Appendix B, indicating facilities that manage hazardous
materials and wastes. The four (4) sites with identified hazardous waste permits are: Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation - Pulaski Service Center in the Town of Richland; Mapleview
Substation, a NYSDOT facility and the NYSDOT Bin 1031850 in the Town of Mexico. The two
(2) unspecified types of sites are both in the Town of Richland: Daves Body Shop, and FX
Caprara Chevy Buick.
4.15.2 Environmental Effects and Mitigation
The excavation activities associated with the construction of the Project may have the potential
to impact existing hazardous materials sites if they occur within or near hazardous material sites.
As part of the final EM&CP, field verification would determine the potential for Project-related
impacts and any mitigation strategies would be necessary. There is also the potential for Project
activities to generate additional hazardous materials while working in contaminated areas by
excavating soils or collecting contaminated groundwater. Small volumes of hazardous materials
may also be generated through the use of various chemicals, such as organic solvents, during the
construction phase.
4.15.2.1 Contaminated Sites
Construction in an area with preexisting soil contamination has the potential for generating
hazardous waste that must be handled and disposed of in accordance with governing
regulations, existing site remediation plans and clean-up consent orders where such
documents may exist. Excess excavated material may need to be managed by transport to a
permitted treatment or disposal facility. Any construction in or close by a contaminated site
could have the potential to impact the integrity of any installed remediation system. Further,
construction in an area that is suspected of having groundwater contamination may require
special collection and containment systems if the construction is sufficiently deep to enter the
water table. These scenarios have the potential to impact the Project and the existing
environment requiring additional measures to manage any contaminated soil or groundwater
during the construction activity.
For sites that occur along the Proposed Route, the primary method by which the Project will
mitigate these effects will be by placing structures outside areas that may have
environmental contamination. Decisions on the exact placement of Project structures will be
made during the detailed engineering phase. Location of individual structures will be done to
minimize the likelihood of entering contaminated sites. Should any structure be required to
be located in or adjacent to a known contaminated site, a site-specific plan will be developed
and incorporated into the EM&CP as necessary.
All site plans developed for this Project will address the potential hazards associated with the
location as well as the specific actions necessary to ensure hazardous materials are not
further released in the environment and worker safety is maintained. The plan will include
coverage of worker training, worker and community health and safety, waste
characterization, minimization, handling, and disposal.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 123

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Any Project activities that could potentially impact existing contaminated sites will be done in
accordance with State and Federal environmental remediation regulations.
Best
management practices, as defined in part by the NYSDEC Technical and Administrative
Guidance Memorandum, will be utilized in development of the EM&CP document.
4.15.2.2 Hazardous Materials Releases
The Project will utilize hazardous materials, including petroleum-based materials, throughout
the construction process. All regulatory requirements will be met and best management
practices employed to minimize the risk for Project-related releases. A spill prevention,
control and counter measure plan will be developed during the EM&CP phase of the Project
to address action taken in the unlikely event of a release during Project construction. This
plan will be prepared in accordance with applicable NYSDEC regulations and guidance.
These include documents such as the Spill Technology and Remediation Series, the Spill
Prevention Operation Technology Series and the Spill Guidance Manual.
4.15.2.3 Hazardous Materials Management
There are no anticipated Project-related impacts to hazardous material management sites
along the Proposed Route. Similarly, there are no anticipated impacts to the Project from
these sites. Should information be collected in the detailed engineering phase that indicates
otherwise, the EM&CP will identify any necessary procedures, such as notification of facility
personnel, for any hazardous material management site identified along the Proposed Route
to ensure there are no unanticipated impacts to the Project or adjacent facilities.
Hazardous materials generated or maintained by the Project will be managed in accordance
with all state and federal hazardous material regulations and NYSDEC guidance. Specific
handling requirements will be dependent on the types and quantities of materials and wastes
generated during the Project construction phase. Refueling procedures for construction
equipment will be instituted to prevent the release of petroleum products such as diesel fuel
or gasoline. This will include a prohibition on refueling equipment near streams or
waterbodies to prevent any releases from entering the waterway. A detailed hazardous
materials plan and procedures will be developed for the EM&CP. Table 4.15-2 presents a
listing of the potential hazardous materials that could be used by the Project.
4.16 Noise
Pursuant to PSL 122(1)(c), 16 NYCRR 86.5(a), and 86.5(b)(8), this section includes an
assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the operation of the proposed substation in
Mexico, New York. The analysis identifies noise-sensitive receptors, including residences that could
be affected by noise generated by the operation of the substation.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 124

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

4.16.1 Applicable Noise Standards


The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) uses a noise guideline
document 4 to assess noise impacts. The Guideline states The Leq value provides an indication of
the effects of sound on people. It is also useful in establishing the ambient sound level at a
potential noise source Appropriate receptor locations may be either at the property line of the
parcel upon which the facility is located or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent
property The most conservative approach utilizes the property line. 5 The NYSDEC Guideline
also notes the EPA residential goal of 55 dBA for the day-night sound level (Ldn). 6 For this Project,
the NYSDEC Leq and Ldn guidelines were applied at both the property lines, to be conservative,
and at the nearest residences.
The Ldn noise metric is a 24-hour equivalent sound level with a 10-dBA penalty added to the
hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for increased human sensitivity to noise
during the night. An Ldn value of 55 dBA is equivalent to an Leq value of 48.6 dBA for a
continuously operating sound source such as an electrical transformer. Appendix S provides
additional information on sound metrics and terminology.
4.16.2 Existing Conditions
The proposed Mexico substation would be located approximately 1,500 feet east of County
Road 58. The area surrounding the proposed site is primarily rural with several residences to the
east along County Road 58 and a few residences to the north along La Casse Road. The
proposed substation will be sited so that there will be approximately 1,200 feet between the
fence line and the nearest residence.
The acoustic environment in the rural area surrounding the Project results from motor vehicle
traffic on local roads (including County Route 58 and U.S. Route 11), agricultural equipment,
lawn and garden equipment on residential property, and natural sounds. Typical sound levels
associated with various activities and environments are presented in Appendix S.
4.16.3 Projected Conditions
4.16.3.1 Construction
It is expected that there will be a noise impact during the construction of the substation
facility in Mexico, New York. Noise produced during the construction of the substation will be
typical of that produced by heavy equipment used for heavy earthwork, foundation
construction, and the installation of heavy duty electrical equipment.

NYSDEC, Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, Program Policy Guideline DEP-00-1, February 2001. NYSDEC staff note that
this document is presently being revised and an update may be published during the SEQR process for this Project.
5
Ibid, pp. 12-13.
6
US EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with An Adequate Margin of
Safety, EPA-550/9-74-004, 1974.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 125

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Construction-related noise will be temporary; and therefore, the effect on potential receptors
is not anticipated to be significant. Typical noise levels of transportation and construction
equipment is presented in Table 4.16-1.
To the extent practical, efforts will be made to schedule construction activity so as to
minimize the need for and duration that these activities extend beyond normal daylight
working hours.
4.16.3.2 Operation
Appendix S contains a preliminary assessment of the predicted sound levels that result from
the operation of the proposed substation. The sound-generating source at the proposed
345 kV substation in Mexico, New York is a 330 MVA electric transformer rated at 90 dB by
the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Sound power levels with octave bands were
calculated for the transformer using empirical methods. 7 The modeled sound power level (Lw)
for the transformer was 110.7 dBA.
Future maximum sound levels at the site property boundaries and nearest residences were
predicted using the Cadna-A acoustic model assuming simultaneous operation of all plant
equipment at maximum operating conditions. Cadna-A is a sophisticated 3-D model for sound
propagation and attenuation based on International Standard ISO 9613-2. 8 The ISO
Standard was used to calculate propagation and attenuation of sound energy by
hemispherical divergence with distance, surface and building reflection, and shielding effects
by barriers, buildings, and ground topography. The noise modeling also accounted for the
effects of atmospheric absorption, the process by which sound energy is absorbed by the air,
in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.26-1995. 9 Air absorption
of sound assumed standard day conditions and is significant at large distances and at high
frequencies.
The predicted maximum sound levels are conservative because the acoustic model assumes
a ground-based temperature inversion, such as may occur on a calm, clear night when sound
propagation is most favorable. A hard ground surface and complete sound reflection was
assumed for the area inside the fenced substation.
4.16.4 Environmental Effects and Mitigation
Predicted 24-hour equivalent sound levels (Leq(24-hour)) and day-night sound levels (Ldn) from
the operation of the substation transformer are provided in Table 4.16.4-1 for the four sites at
the property lines of the proposed facility and at the closest residences along County Road 58 to
the southwest (labeled R1-R5). The predicted Ldn values at the property boundaries would range
from 53.6 to 55.0 dBA, and at the closest residences the predicted Ldn values would range from

Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide, 2nd Edition, pp. 4-17.
International Standard, ISO 9613-2, Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors -- Part 2 General Method of
Calculation.
9
ANSI S1.26-1995, American National Standard Method for the Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere, 1995.
8

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 126

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

43.9 to 46.5 dBA. These results demonstrate compliance with the NYSDEC residential guideline of
55 dBA Ldn, since the predicted Ldn values at the nearest residences are at least 8 dBA below the
recommended limit. The 24-hour average sound levels (Leq(24-hr)) from the substation at the
five nearest residences would range from 37.5 to 40.1 dBA. Figure 1 in Appendix S provides a
noise contour map showing lines of equal sound levels (expressed in terms of Leq(24-hour)) due
to full operation of the substation.
4.17 Electric and Magnetic Fields
This section assesses EMFs associated with the operation of the Transmission Cable System. To
assess the potential impact of this Project on these electrical aspects of the environment, the
proposed converter stations and transmission lines were evaluated in typical configurations of the
proposed facilities that would produce maximum field values. This information is described in more
detail in Appendix L. As summarized in the report, predicted impacts will:

Be well below human health-based standards and are not expected to have negative ecological
impacts along the Submarine Transmission Cable Route;

Produce EMF strengths well below the relevant New York EMF interim standard at the ROW
edges of the Upland Transmission Cable Route; and

Be well below the available health-based standards.

An EMF is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged
objects in the vicinity of the field. Most objects are electrically neutral because positive and negative
charges are present in equal numbers. When the balance of electric charges is altered, we experience
electrical effects, such as the static-electricity attraction between a comb and our hair, or drawing
sparks after walking on a synthetic rug in the wintertime. Electrical effects occur both in nature and
because of our society's use of electric power (generation, transmission, consumption).
Everyone experiences a variety of natural and man-made electric and magnetic fields and EMFs
extend indefinitely throughout space, unless shielded in some manner. Man-made magnetic fields
are common in everyday life. Many childhood toys contain magnets, which create direct current (DC)
fields. That is, permanent magnets generate strong, steady magnetic fields, but also time-varying
magnetic fields, should the magnet be moving. Typical toy magnets (e.g., refrigerator door
magnets) have fields of 100,000 to 500,000 milliGauss (mG). The earth's core creates a steady
magnetic field that can be easily demonstrated with a compass needle. The size of the earth's
magnetic field in the Northern United States is about 570 mG. Knowing the strength of the earth's
magnetic field provides a perspective on the size of power-line magnetic fields.
4.17.1 Available State, National, and International Guidelines for EMF
Table 4.17.1-1 shows guidelines suggested by national and international health organizations.
Table 4.17.1-2 lists guidelines that have been adopted by various states in the U.S. The first table
shows levels which were developed to be protective against any adverse health effects, but
which should not be viewed as demarcation lines between safe and dangerous levels of EMF. The

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 127

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

second table shows guidelines that have generally been adopted by different states to maintain
the status quo of typical EMF on and near transmission-line ROWs, and are not health-based.
4.17.2 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Current EMF conditions within the Project Area are the result of existing natural phenomena and
existing man-made electrical facilities. The Projects EMF strengths were modeled using FIELDS
Computer software. No EMF measurements were conducted in the field. Information on the
design of the subaquatic cable and overhead and underground transmission line on Galloo Island
and the mainland, such as line voltage, current, conductor diameter, transmission line
configuration, and other parameters were used in the predictive model. The predictive model
calculated predictive EMF values at both normal peak load and winter normal rating load levels.
The predictive model assures compliance with the NYSPSCs Statement of Interim Policy on
Magnetic Fields of Major Electric Transmission Facilities (NYSPSC, September 11, 1990).
The computer model predicts that electric fields will not be produced by either the subaquatic or
underground Transmission Cables. Where buried either beneath the lake bed, covered by
concrete pillows or buried below ground, the electric fields from the transmission cable will be
shielded. Where the single circuit transmission line is in an overhead configuration, peak electric
fields range from 4.7 kV/m beneath the line to 0.12 kV/m at the edge of the ROW. If a second
circuit is added to the structures in the future, electric fields are expected to be 7.0 kV/m
beneath the line to 0.18 kV/m at the edge of the ROW. These levels conform to or are
substantially below the New York Interim Policy on EMF standards for electric fields.
The magnetic field levels at all locations fall well below guidelines established by the New York
State Interim Policy on EMF standards for acceptable public exposure to EMF. The maximum
magnetic field at the lakebed is 46 mG, which is well below the available health-based exposure
guidelines for public exposure (833 mG; [ICNIRP 1998]). The Upland Underground Cable will
produce magnetic fields of 46 mG directly above the cable and 0.5 mG at the edges of the
ROW 10. Both of the predicted magnetic field levels are well below the New York State Interim
Policy on EMF standard of 200 mG at ROW edges.
4.17.3 Environmental Effects and Mitigation
The proposed overhead line will produce electric fields at intensities within the range associated
with natural phenomena. These fields may be perceived but are not harmful. Buildings, trees,
fences, cars, and objects in general are effective in reducing exposure to these fields and there
are no electric fields associated with the subaquatic or underground sections of the transmission
line. In the potential future case where the facility is upgraded to a double circuit configuration,
the electric fields in the ROW exceed the New York standard of 7.0 kV/m for highway crossings,
though the maximum field level is below the 11.0 kV/m New York standard for private road
crossings and the 11.8 kV/m New York standard for maximum field levels. This can be mitigated

10

ROW width is 150 wide or 75 either side of the centerline.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 128

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

by adjusting the minimum clearance of the lowest conductors from 26 feet to 28 feet at highway
crossings. This results in a revised maximum electric field of 6.8 kV/m.
The magnetic field from the proposed transmission facilities is too weak to produce any
environmental or health effect and would not cause any human health-based exposure limit to be
exceeded. Considering both the magnitude and time-variation of the magnetic fields produced
by the overhead, subaquatic or buried cable, adverse ecological effects are not to be expected.
In addition, the maximum levels of electric and magnetic fields from power line conductors occur
over a very limited extent in areas adjacent to the conductors, and EMFs decrease rapidly with
distance away from the circuits. The highly localized nature of the potential EMF exposures
means that widespread exposures to the ecosystem will not occur, and in the limited locations of
EMF impact, exposures will typically be of a very short duration as animals, insects, birds, or
aquatic species traverse the area. Available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that EMF
associated with the operation of the Project transmission line will not result in an adverse impact
on birds, wildlife, aquatic organisms, or other ecological receptors and it is not anticipated that
there will be any adverse health effects due to exposure to EMF levels from the transmission line.
Appendix L provides a more a detailed discussion of the EMF and their effects.
REFERENCES
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines:
the State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute and the California Energy Commission.
Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.
Bode, R.W. 1988. Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State.
Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division of Water, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Caldwell, D. and Pair, D.L., 1991. Surficial Geology of New York- Adirondack Sheet, New York State
Geological Survey.
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C. and LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands of Deepwater
Habitats in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Resources. Washington, D.C.
Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part I: Aeshnidae, Petaluridae,
Gomphidae, Cordulegastridae. Bulletin of American Odonatology 7(4):61-90.
Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part II: Macromiidae, Corduliidae and
Libellulidae. Bulletin of American Odonatology 8(1):1-32.
Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part III: Calopterygidae, Lestidae,
Coenagrionidae, Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, with data sources and bibliography, Parts 1-III.
Bulletin of American Odonatology 8(2-3):33-99.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 129

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002.
Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of
Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural
Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/29392.html Accessed August, 2008.
Great Lakes Information Network. 2008. Invasive Species in the Great Lakes Region.
http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/invasive.html Accessed October, 2008.
Houston, C. S. and D. E. Bowen, Jr. 2001. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/580 Accessed July, 2008
Isachsen, Y.W, et.al., 2000. Geology of New York A Simplified Account. New York: New York State
Museum: 67 99.
Johannsson, O.E., M. Charlton, P. Chow-Fraser, R.M. Dermott, E.T. Howell, J.C. Makarewicz, E.S. Millard,
E.L. Mills and V. Richardson. 2007. Productivity and Limnology; pages 11-22 in B.J. Morrison
and S.R. LaPan (eds.) The State of Lake Ontario in 2003. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann
Arbor, MI. Special Publication 07-01.
Kingsley, N. P. 1985. A Foresters Atlas of the Northeast. United States Department of Agriculture.
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NE-95.
Kondratieff, B.C. 2000. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) of the United States. Jamestown, ND:
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/insects/dfly/index.htm (Version 12DEC2003) Accessed
July, 2008
Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). 2006. Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan Status.
Available online. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeont/2006/LO2006.pdf Accessed March, 2008.
Lanyon, Wesley E. 1995. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), The Birds of North America Online (A.
Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/160 Accessed July, 2008
Makarewicz, J.C., I.A. Grigorovich, E. Mills, E. Damaske, M.E. Cristescu, W. Pearsall, M.J. LaVoie, R.
Keats, L. Rudstam, P. Hebert, H. Halbritter, T. Kelly, C. Matkovich, and H.J. MacIsaac. 2001.
Distribution, fecundity, and genetics of Cercopagis pengoi (Ostroumov)(Crustacea, Cladocera) in
Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 27(1): 19-32.
Martin, Stephen G. and Thomas A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of
North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/176 Accessed July, 2008

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 130

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

McCullough, R.D. and D.V. Weseloh. 2007. Double-crested Cormorants Impacts and Management;
pages 35-44 in B.J. Morrison and S.R. LaPan (eds.) The State of Lake Ontario in 2003. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI. Special Publication 07-01.
Mills, E.L., Casselman, J.M., Dermott, R., Fitzsimons, J.D., Gal, G., Holeck, K.T., Hoyle, J.A., Johannsson,
O.E., Lantry, B.F., Makarewicz, J.C., Millard, E.S., Munawar, I.F., Munawar, M., OGorman, R.,
Owens, R.W., Rudstam, L.G., Schaner, T., and Stewart, T.J. 2005. A synthesis of ecological and
fish community changes in Lake Ontario, 1970-2000. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 67.
National Audubon Society (NAS). 2005. The Important Bird Areas Historical Results.
http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba Accessed July, 2008
New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Online Conservation Guide for Bartramia longicauda.
http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=6861 Accessed July, 2008.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM). 1997. Pipeline Right-of-Way
Construction Projects: Agricultural Mitigation through the Stages of Project Planning,
Construction/Restoration and Follow-up Monitoring. Revised November 1997.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2002. Lake Ontario Islands
Wildlife Management Area, Management Plan.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/loiwma.pdf Accessed March, 2008.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2007. Lake Ontario Annual
Report 2006. Section 19: Offshore Benthic Invertebrate Community of Southern Lake Ontario.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt06sec19.pdf Accessed October, 2008.
New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 2001. State Coastal Policies. Coastal Management
Program. Albany, New York. http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/consistency_coastalpolicies.asp
Accessed November, 2008.
New York State Geographic Information Systems Clearinghouse (NYSGISC), 2006. Soil Survey
Geographic Database.
http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=867 Accessed October,
2008.
New York State Geological Survey, 1999. Bedrock Attributes, Version 1.0, New York State Museum.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/data/bedrock.txt Accessed October, 2008.
New York State Surficial Geology Material Explanation, New York State Museum, unknown date.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/data/surficialegl.txt Accessed October, 2008.
NYSDEC, 2000. Oil and Gas Well Permit.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/1603.html Accessed July, 2008.
NYSDEC, 2006. Mined Land Permit.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5374.html Accessed July, 2008
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 131

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

NYSDEC. 2008a. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. Release 1.0. Albany (New York): New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html Accessed July, 2008.
NYSDEC. 2008b. Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27072.html Accessed March, 2008.
NYSDEC. 2008c. Lake Ontario Islands BCA Management Guidance Summary.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/27156.html Accessed March, 2008.
NYSDOS. 2004a. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat Rating
Form Little Galloo Island. NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/sig_hab/GreatLakes/Little_Galloo_Island.pdf
Accessed March, 2008.
NYSDOS. 2004b. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat Rating
Form Calf Island. NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/sig_hab/GreatLakes/Calf_Island.pdf Accessed
March, 2008.
Ocean Surveys, Inc. 2008. Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigations Upstate NY Power Corp. Electric
Transmission Line Lake Ontario Galloo Island-Stony Point, NY. Report No. 08ES042.
Owens, R.W. and D.E. Dittman. 2003. Shifts in the diets of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and lake
whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake Ontario following the collapse of the burrowing
amphipod Diporeia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 6(3): 311-323.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89/001.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Resh V.H. and G. Grodhaus. 1983. Aquatic insects in urban environments. In Urban Entomology:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. G.W. Frankie and C.S. Koehler, pp. 247-76. Praeger Pubs.,
New York.
Sauer, J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J. E. Hines. 1995. The Grassland Bird Home Page. Version
95.0. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/grass.htm Accessed July, 2008
Schieppati, Frank J., Mark A. Steinback, Christine M. Longiaru, Andrew Lydecker, Kelly Mahar, Donald
Smith, and Sharon Jenkins. 2008a. Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed

Upstate NY Power Corp. Hounsfield Transmission Line Project Area, Towns of Hounsfield,
Henderson and Ellisburg, Jefferson County, and Towns of Sandy Creek, Richland and Mexico,
Oswego County, New York. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Buffalo Branch, Buffalo. Prepared for
Upstate NY Power Corporation, West Seneca, NY.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 132

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

Schieppati, Frank J., Rebecca J. Emans, Mark A. Steinback, Michael A. Cinquino, and Christine M.
Longiaru. 2008b. Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Hounsfield Wind
Farm, Galloo Island Project Area, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York. Panamerican
Consultants, Inc., Buffalo Branch, Buffalo. Prepared for Upstate NY Power Corporation, West
Seneca, NY.
Schloesser, D.W. 1986. A Field Guide to Valuable Underwater Aquatic Plants of the Great Lakes. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor Michigan and Cooperative
Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Extension Bulletin E-1902.
http://www.mlswa.org/underwaterplantguide/ Accessed October, 2008
Shriver, W.G., A.L. Jones, P.D. Vickery, A. Weik and J. Wells. 2005. The Distribution and Abundance of
Obligate Grassland Birds Breeding in New England and New York. Washington, D.C. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191.2005
Stewart, C.J. 2003. A Revised Geomorphic, Shore Protection and Nearshore Classification of the
Canadian and United States Shorelines of the Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Canadian
Coastal Conference 2003.
http://www.cjscons.com/downloads/Stewart01.pdf Accessed March, 2008.
Stillwell, S.et al. 2005, Fractures and Faults in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, Oswego County, New
York, New York State Geological Association 77th Annual Meeting Field Trip Guidebook
Straver, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum
Memoir 26.
Tetra Tech, EC Inc., 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy
Project Towns of Cape Vincent & Lyme, Jefferson County, New, York.
http://www.stlawrencewind.com/deis.html Accessed December, 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Guidelines for Bog Turtle Surveys. A revision to the Bog Turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population Recovery Plan (dated May 15, 2001).
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/btsurvey.pdf Accessed 2008.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. New York Field Office, Cortland, New York.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/S10.htm Accessed September, 2008.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1981, Soil Survey of Oswego County, New York, Soils
Conservation Service.
USDA, 1989. Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York, Soils Conservation Service.
USDA, 2006. Soil Data Mart
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ Accessed October 2008
USDA, 2007. National Soil Survey Handbook.
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/ Accessed November, 2008.
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 133

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact


December 2008

USEPA, 2008. Envirofacts Data Warehouse website.


http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=NY0213845&npvalue=1&npvalue
=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalue
=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12 Accessed November, 2008.
USFWS. 2007. Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle. Bald Eagle Monitoring Team.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/BaldEagle.htm Accessed July, 2008
Veni, G.et al. 2001, Living With Karst A Fragile Foundation. American Geological Institute Environmental
Awareness Series, 4. http://www.agiweb.org/environment/publications/karst.pdf Accessed
November, 2008.
Virden, W.T., J.S. Warren, T.L. Holcombe, D.F. Reid, and T.L. Berggren, 1999. Bathymetry of Lake
Ontario, National Geophysical Data Center, World Data Center for Marine Geology and
Geophysics, Boulder, CO, Report MGG-15, scale 1:275,000 poster.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Page 134

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4.doc

Tables

Table 4.1.1-1: Amount of Proposed Route in Existing ROWs Corridor


Location
Length (Miles)
Percentage of Total (Miles)
Abandoned RR ROW / Active 34.5 kV Line ROW
0.7
1.5%
Abandoned Woodville ROW
9.2
18.2%
Active RR ROW
5.8
11.4%
Gas Line ROW
3.9
7.7%
Existing ROW
19.6
38.7%
Greenfield
19.4
38.4%
Subaquatic
9.0
17.7%
Galloo Island
2.6
5.2%
New ROW
31.0
61.3%
Proposed Route Total
50.6
100%
Table 4.2.2-1: Counties Crossed by the Route
State of New York
County
Distance (approximate miles)
Jefferson
31.3 (incl. 9 miles subaquatic)
Oswego
19.3
Total
50.6
Table 4.2.2-2: Towns Crossed in Jefferson County
Town and Village
Distance (approximate miles)
Hounsfield
11.58 (Galloo Island and subaquatic)
Henderson
7.5
Ellisburg
12.3
Total
31.38
Table 4.2.2-3: Towns Crossed in Oswego County
Town
Distance (approximate miles)
Sandy Creek
5.7
Richland
10.2

Village of Pulaski

Mexico
Total

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

2.4 (included in Town total)


3.3
19.2

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-1: Land Use in ROW


Land Use Type (Acres)
Station
Number

County

Town

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

21

Oswego

22

Oswego

23

Oswego

24

Oswego

25

Oswego

26

Oswego

27

Oswego

27

Oswego

28

Oswego

Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy
Creek
Sandy
Creek
Sandy
Creek
Sandy
Creek
Sandy
Creek
Sandy
Creek
Richland
Sandy
Creek
Richland

Agriculture

Commercial

Community
Service

Industrial

Public
Services

Residential

Unspecified

Vacant
Land

Wild, Forested,
Conservation
Lands and
Public Parks

Grand Total

Mainland

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

17.09
5.14
4.86
14.58
3.44

1.51
5.64
5.03
17.13
17.12
0.43
14.52
17.33
10.32
6.21
16.58
17.07
9.92
16.01
6.13
5.26
10.91
9.40
17.33
8.12

0.52

3.95
5.40
2.06
8.15

6.32
0.64

2.18

6.76
10.95
0.38
0.02

6.02
1.11
7.98
8.42
6.23
1.81

1.17
2.33
3.48
5.95
4.71

17.09
16.92
16.53
16.65
17.15
17.13
17.12
2.61
14.52
17.33
17.07
17.16
16.96
17.07
17.15
17.12
16.44
17.16
17.14
17.16
17.33
12.83

0.14

4.31

4.45

5.84

1.06

8.18

1.68

16.77

6.03

1.65

3.22

6.26

17.16

4.39

4.14

16.98

8.38

0.07

13.00
5.76

4.16

17.16

11.40

17.16

2.79
6.74
3.83

6.58

1.07

3.86

0.05

13.37

13.27

17.10
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 2

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-1: Land Use in ROW


Land Use Type (Acres)
Station
Number

County

Town

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
41

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

0
1
2
3

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield

Agriculture

Commercial

Community
Service

Industrial

Public
Services

0.16
1.12
4.76
0.99
9.35

0.13
0.81
12.33

Residential

1.22
10.05
13.69
6.46
3.61
4.55
5.85
15.13
0.20
6.51
7.98
9.14
3.91

Unspecified

7.12

Vacant
Land

15.48
12.29
1.50
3.35
2.73
4.20
12.78
11.12
2.04
9.31
0.98
7.63
8.18

Wild, Forested,
Conservation
Lands and
Public Parks

Grand Total

15.64
14.63
16.31
17.04
17.31
17.16
17.32
16.98
17.17
9.63
7.49
16.42
17.32
16.24

Galloo Island

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

0.28
17.86
18.30
11.36

0.28
17.86
18.30
11.36

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 3

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-2: Land Use in Study Area


Station
Number

Land Use Type (Acres)


County

Town

Agriculture

Commercial

Community
Service

Industrial

Public
Services

Recreation

Residential

Unspecified

Vacant
Land

Wild, Forested,
Conservation Lands
and Public Parks

Grand Total

Mainland
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Jefferson
Henderson
Jefferson
Henderson
0.19
Jefferson
Henderson
29.70
Jefferson
Henderson
96.41
Jefferson
Henderson
27.11
Jefferson
Henderson
80.42
Jefferson
Henderson
270.61
Jefferson
Henderson
262.99
Jefferson
Ellisburg
17.83
Jefferson
Henderson
208.61
Jefferson
Ellisburg
260.70
Jefferson
Ellisburg
208.01
Jefferson
Ellisburg
104.21
Jefferson
Ellisburg
244.08
Jefferson
Ellisburg
263.26
Jefferson
Ellisburg
215.58
Jefferson
Ellisburg
250.86
Jefferson
Ellisburg
129.57
Jefferson
Ellisburg
153.78
Jefferson
Ellisburg
123.26
Jefferson
Ellisburg
127.80
Jefferson
Ellisburg
244.54
Jefferson
Ellisburg
94.76
Oswego
Sandy Creek
8.13
Oswego
Sandy Creek
100.86
Oswego
Sandy Creek
50.99
Oswego
Sandy Creek
105.44
Oswego
Sandy Creek
207.30
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Richland
30.69
Oswego
Sandy Creek
78.64
Oswego
Richland
37.53
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
8.40
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
25.20

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

0.43
0.17
3.07

5.99

11.36
0.80

23.81
8.82
0.14
63.03
0.95
0.15
0.63
4.13

7.38

12.33
20.69
0.29
8.94
8.67
7.74
0.03
14.50
13.07
19.60
52.16
20.75

3.65
18.29
2.26
31.43
8.71

0.33
6.04
11.69

24.00

7.29
235.88
77.94
79.23
182.42
61.98
0.83
2.03

0.00
36.21
97.65
77.24
42.16
116.89
1.95
1.22

7.01
15.71
1.31
161.37
16.34
3.79
48.25
15.13
112.52
85.09
121.98
48.18
32.67
0.62
1.52
92.73
106.27
65.46
5.86
104.86
0.02
25.45
54.70
26.40
32.35
84.58
155.74

1.99

7.40
0.53

52.47
9.22

6.34

4.63
13.48
30.31
10.72
81.31

12.13
50.24
138.34
0.15
101.04
3.79
26.18
0.98
15.66
156.61

26.75

25.73
61.44
62.36
96.65
87.36
22.84
26.56
3.99
140.79
171.15
92.55
59.66
38.90
49.99

15.17
9.06
84.32

0.18
2.22

7.29
272.27
257.76
262.54
263.22
269.16
273.40
266.24
41.63
226.43
276.55
272.35
272.97
268.24
267.20
269.09
265.98
259.70
269.19
271.14
273.73
277.21
205.42
71.10
268.28
274.60
270.86
274.56
274.71
65.17
209.16
255.30
234.94
217.02
228.80
231.04
267.26

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 4

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-2: Land Use in Study Area


Station
Number

Land Use Type (Acres)


County

Town

Agriculture

34
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
41

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

0
1
2
3

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield

Commercial

130.80
39.33

Community
Service

Industrial

Public
Services

Recreation

0.44
1.29

0.24
36.79
15.43

37.21
11.20
4.38

152.27

9.16
0.58
16.09
0.54

8.75

Residential

Unspecified

80.20
131.14
163.49
124.82
38.01
36.18
177.36
142.51
42.36

Vacant
Land

64.40
104.11
106.25
149.87
33.50
55.13
70.29
130.27
101.13

Wild, Forested,
Conservation Lands
and Public Parks

Grand Total

275.85
274.57
271.03
274.93
154.67
118.53
268.12
273.32
304.51

Galloo Island

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

3.13

53.51
200.19
276.26
110.37

53.51
200.19
279.40
110.37

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 5

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-3: Agricultural Land Use in ROW


Station
Number
2
3
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
23
24

County

Town

Agricultural
District
(Y/N)

Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Henderson
Y
Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Henderson
Y
Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Henderson
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Henderson
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Henderson
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Jefferson
Ellisburg
N
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Y
Oswego Sandy Creek
N
Oswego Sandy Creek
N
Oswego
Sandy Creek

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Land Use Type (Acres)


Agriculture
Vacant Land
(Productive)
1.51
5.64
0.00
0.05
1.41
0.11
1.82
0.81

Cattle,
Calves,
Hogs

Dairy
Products

0.09
6.49

0.22
6.01
17.33
0.03
10.29
3.44
10.40
17.07
4.83
0.08
14.25
6.13
4.69
0.04

Field
Crops

Horse
Farms

0.35
4.63
5.86
9.75
2.42
5.48
0.04
8.46
0.17
0.05

2.77
6.18
5.09
1.69

0.53
6.44
4.34
0.41
10.58
0.00
8.12

4.47
5.06
6.00
0.34

3.44
6.03
N

Nursery and
Greenhouse

6.97

2.40

Grand Total
Unspecified
1.51
5.64
0.35
4.68
7.26
9.86
4.33
12.79
0.04
8.46
0.39
6.06
17.33
0.03
10.29
6.21
16.58
17.07
9.92
1.76
14.25
6.13
5.22
0.04
10.91
5.06
4.34
6.41
10.92
0.00
8.12
5.84
6.03
6.97
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 6

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-3: Agricultural Land Use in ROW


Station
Number
24
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
33
33
34
34
41
41
42

County

Town

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Agricultural
District
(Y/N)
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

Land Use Type (Acres)


Agriculture
Vacant Land
(Productive)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y

Cattle,
Calves,
Hogs
0.37

0.04
2.52
6.69

Dairy
Products
1.04
13.00

Field
Crops

Horse
Farms

Nursery and
Greenhouse

Grand Total
Unspecified
4.16
4.68
6.72
6.58

0.27
0.03
3.80

1.26
2.81
4.06

0.04
0.96
1.60
7.75
9.18
8.27

7.12

1.41
17.16
4.68
6.72
6.62
2.79
6.69
0.03
3.80
7.16
0.96
1.60
7.75
10.44
2.81
12.33

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 7

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-4: Agricultural Land Use in Study Area


Station
Number

County

Town

Agricultural
District
(Y/N)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Land Use Type (Acres)


Agriculture
Vacant Land
(Productive)
0.19
29.70
73.16
0.42
20.48
17.23
46.24

Cattle,
Calves,
Hogs

Dairy
Products

13.01

0.12
1.53
0.06
0.47
0.84
1.86
0.35
0.39
1.81
4.97
0.99
0.02

4.49
0.35
59.78
0.74
29.31

57.90
5.99
8.81

Field
Crops

0.07
1.41

Livestock
and
Products

3.06
0.86

Unspecified

2.48
3.14
0.57

8.64
0.15
19.98
57.22
44.30
63.39

51.33

43.07
0.62

1.31

Nursery
and
Greenhouse

10.24
26.69
27.16
63.90
12.91
0.35
57.64

8.09
6.35
50.87
97.31
0.02

Horse
Farms

12.13
0.58
67.37
101.04
3.60
26.18
0.98
15.66

Grand Total
0.19
29.70
96.41
27.11
47.64
81.24
60.67
0.41
58.12
3.31
1.86
3.49
0.96
1.81
9.46
9.63
0.52
79.76
115.86
73.62
69.39
8.81
8.09
100.76
50.87
110.14
2.01
67.37
102.35
6.66
27.04
0.98
15.66

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 8

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-4: Agricultural Land Use in Study Area


Station
Number

County

Town

Agricultural
District
(Y/N)

33
34
35
37
38
38
41
42
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Sandy Creek

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Land Use Type (Acres)


Agriculture
Vacant Land
(Productive)

Cattle,
Calves,
Hogs

Dairy
Products

Field
Crops

Horse
Farms

Livestock
and
Products

Nursery
and
Greenhouse

0.72
3.71

23.15

Unspecified
26.75

2.51
0.24
12.77
14.47
1.84

70.59
26.50

1.67
0.79
1.09

0.56

0.98

36.17
71.50
3.86

10.96
86.46
16.09
137.32
257.39
206.15
61.24
152.08
242.46
133.27
166.15
61.14
0.03
54.18
172.61
85.95

0.00

1.00
0.49

21.74
31.11
177.62
114.76
1.33
13.17

2.94
3.41
2.39
0.39
3.42
4.00
7.72
9.69
8.20
6.55
7.04
7.59
1.12
1.69

39.48
91.04
18.99
71.32
75.07
31.74
2.53
3.51
2.55
0.05

0.10
0.12
2.30
23.30
29.65
77.33

0.00
5.13
182.56
1.04

0.08
1.60
52.38
72.30
0.15
4.80

Grand Total
27.47
26.86
2.51
0.24
13.76
14.95
94.17
26.50
32.78
192.31
205.72
17.42
152.88
257.77
209.57
104.72
250.84
271.14
214.32
247.77
136.09
81.62
8.52
55.88
175.16
85.95
0.05
0.19
0.12
9.04
258.25
72.30
30.85
82.13

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 9

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.1-4: Agricultural Land Use in Study Area


Station
Number

County

Town

Agricultural
District
(Y/N)

28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
38
41

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Richland
Mexico

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Land Use Type (Acres)


Agriculture
Vacant Land
(Productive)
0.69

Cattle,
Calves,
Hogs
33.79

Dairy
Products

Field
Crops

Horse
Farms

Livestock
and
Products

Nursery
and
Greenhouse

Unspecified
0.19
1.81
9.55
0.89

7.55

24.48
103.94

0.00

36.82
0.04
23.03
0.47
33.33

96.94

22.00

0.54

Grand Total
34.66
9.36
9.55
0.89
24.48
103.94
36.82
0.04
23.03
0.47
152.81

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 10

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.4-1: Land Use at Roads Crossed by the Proposed Centerline


Station

County

Town

1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
22
22
22
23
24
24
25
26
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
36
36
37

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Road Crossing
Mainland
School House Rd
Military Rd
Cedarcove Rd
Ceder Vale Rd
County Road 178
County Road 152
County Road 178
Gobbe Hill Rd
State Highway 3
Town Barn Rd
County Road 78
County Road 152
County Road 79
County Road 75
Allard Rd
Johnson Rd
State Highway 289
Saxe Rd
Lee Rd
Scott Rd
State Highway 193
Torrey Hill Rd
County Road 90
Cobblestone Corner Rd
Castor Rd
County Route 22A
Kehoe Rd
Hadley Rd
Carr Dr
Lake St
Frazer Rd
Upton Rd
Maltby Rd
I-81
Jefferson St
Centerville Rd
Richland Rd
State Highway 13
Unknown
State Highway 11
County Route 28
County Route 41A
Dry Bridge Rd

Land Use Description*


R
R
A, WFCP
V
A
R
R
R
V
A
A
A
A
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
A, R
A, R
R
R, V
A
C
V
A, V
R
A
U
A
V
V
V
V
C, V
R
V
V
R
R
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 11

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.4-1: Land Use at Roads Crossed by the Proposed Centerline


Station
38
41

County
Oswego
Oswego

Town
Mexico
Mexico

Jefferson

Hounsfield

Road Crossing
Tubbs Rd
La Casse Rd
Galloo Island
Unknown Vehicular Trail

Land Use Description*


PS, R
A
R

Notes:
*Refer to Section 4.7.1 of Article VII Application for descriptions of land use designations
A = Agricultural
C = Commercial
PS = Public Services
R = Residential
V = Vacant Land
WFCP = Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks

Table 4.7.4-2: Roads Crossed By the Proposed Route


Nearest
Station
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10

Road Crossing
Hovey Rd
School House Rd
Unknown
Cedar Cove Rd
County Road 178
Military Rd
Snowshoe Rd
Unknown
Whites Bay Rd
Cedar Cove Rd
Cedarcove Rd
Ceder Vale Rd
County Road 178
Light House Rd
Paradise Park Rd
Unknown
Whitney Rd
County Road 152
County Road 178
Eastman Tract
Fargo Rd
Game Club Rd
Gobbe Hill Rd
Light House Rd
Paradise Park Rd
Unknown
Unknown
County Road 152
Game Club Rd
Harbor Rd
State Highway 3
Unknown
Town Barn Rd
County Road 152
County Road 78
County Road 152
County Road 79
County Road 79
Fillhart Pl

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

County
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Town

Road Type

Mainland
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Driveway or service road
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Secondary
Henderson
Driveway or service road
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Local
Henderson
Secondary
Henderson
Local
Ellisburg
Local
Ellisburg
Local
Ellisburg
Local

Configuration

Jurisdiction

2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes

Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 12

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.4-2: Roads Crossed By the Proposed Route


Nearest
Road Crossing
Station
11
County Road 75
11
Mc Hale Pl
12
Allard Rd
12
Johnson Rd
12
Macheld Rd
12
Machold Rd
13
Lee Rd
13
Machold Rd
13
State Highway 289
14
Lee Rd
14
Saxe Rd
14
Unknown
15
Benjamin Pl
15
Lee Rd
15
Log London Rd
15
Martin Rd
15
Scott Rd
16
Log London Rd
16
Scott Rd
16
State Highway 193
16
Unknown
16
Woodpecker Ln
17
Torrey Hill Rd
17
Woodpecker Ln
18
County Road 90
18
Woodpecker Ln
19
Cobblestone Corner Rd
22
Castor Rd
22
County Route 22A
22
Kehoe Rd
22
Unknown
23
Hadley Rd
23
Lake St
23
Unknown
24
Carr Dr
24
Carr Rd
24
Lake St
24
Unknown
25
Frazer Rd
26
Fravor Ln
26
Upton Rd
27
Unknown
28
Maltby Rd
28
United States Route 11
28
Unknown
29
I-81
29
Jefferson St
29
Nelson Ave
29
United States Route 11
29
Unknown
29
Unknown
30
Centerville Rd
30
County Route 2A
30
I-81
30
Maple Ave
30
Richland Rd
30
Unknown
30
Unknown

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

County

Town

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

Road Type
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Local
Local
Driveway or service
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Driveway or service
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Driveway or service
Local
Primary
Driveway or service
Primary
Primary
Local
Primary
Local
Ramp
Local
Local
Primary
Local
Local
Driveway or service
Ramp

road

road

road

road

road

Configuration

Jurisdiction

2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
4 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
1 lane

Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
Federal
Local
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Federal
Local
Local
Local
Local

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 13

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.4-2: Roads Crossed By the Proposed Route


Nearest
Station
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
41
41
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3

Road Crossing

County

I-81
State Highway 13
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Wood Rd
Halsey Rd
I-81
State Highway 11
State Highway 11
United States Route 11
Unknown
County Route 41
Unknown
County Route 28
County Route 41A
Dry Bridge Rd
Unknown
Tubbs Rd
Unknown
State Rt 104
Tubbs Rd
Unknown
State Rt 104
La Casse Rd
Unknown

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Town

Road Type

Richland
Primary
Richland
Secondary
Richland
Driveway or service
Richland
Local
Richland
Ramp
Richland
Local
Richland
Local
Richland
Primary
Richland
Primary
Richland
Primary
Richland
Primary
Richland
Driveway or service
Richland
Local
Richland
Driveway or service
Richland
Local
Richland
Local
Richland
Local
Richland
Local
Mexico
Local
Mexico
Local
Mexico
Secondary
Mexico
Local
Mexico
Driveway or service
Mexico
Secondary
Mexico
Local
Mexico
Local
Galloo Island
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail
Hounsfield
Vehicular Trail

road

road
road

road

Configuration

Jurisdiction

4 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
1 lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
1 lane
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes

Federal
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Federal
State
State
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
Local
State
Local
Local

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane

Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local

Table 4.7.4-3: Roads Crossed by the Proposed Route Centerline


Nearest
Station
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
12
13
14

Road Crossing
School House Rd
Military Rd
Cedarcove Rd
Ceder Vale Rd
County Road 178
County Road 178
Gobbe Hill Rd
County Road 152
State Highway 3
Town Barn Rd
County Road 78
County Road 152
County Road 79
County Road 75
Allard Rd
Johnson Rd
State Highway 289
Saxe Rd

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

County
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Town
Mainland
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg

Road Type

Configuration

Jurisdiction

Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Local
Secondary
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Local

2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes

Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 14

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.7.4-3: Roads Crossed by the Proposed Route Centerline


Nearest
Station
15
16
16
17
18
19
22
22
22
23
24
24
25
26
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
36
36
37
38
39
41

Lee Rd
Scott Rd
State Highway 193
Torrey Hill Rd
County Road 90
Cobblestone Corner Rd
Castor Rd
Kehoe Rd
County Route 22A
Hadley Rd
Carr Dr
Lake St
Frazer Rd
Upton Rd
Maltby Rd
I-81
I-81
Jefferson St
I-81
Richland Rd
Centerville Rd
State Highway 13
Unknown
State Highway 11
County Route 28
County Route 41A
Dry Bridge Rd
Tubbs Rd
State Rt 104
La Casse Rd

Unknown

Road Crossing

County

Town

Jefferson
Ellisburg
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Sandy Creek
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Richland
Oswego
Mexico
Oswego
Mexico
Oswego
Mexico
Galloo Island
Jefferson
Hounsfield

Road Type

Configuration

Jurisdiction

Local
Local
Secondary
Local
Secondary
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Local
Local
Secondary
Driveway or service road
Primary
Local
Local
Local
Local
Secondary
Local

2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
1 lane
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes

Local
Local
State
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Federal
Federal
Local
Federal
Local
Local
State
Local
State
Local
Local
Local
Local
State
Local

Vehicular Trail

1 lane

Local

Table 4.7.4-4: Navigable Waterways Crossed by the Proposed Route


Station Number
County
Town
Navigable Waterway
11
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek, Lower, and tributaries
12
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
13
Jefferson
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek, Lower, and tributaries
14
Jefferson
Ellisburg
South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tributaries
15
Jefferson
Ellisburg
South Sandy Creek
28
Oswego
Richland
Salmon River, Lower, and minor tributaries
29
Oswego
Richland
Salmon River
29
Oswego
Richland
Salmon River, Lower, and minor tributaries
30
Oswego
Richland
Salmon River, Lower, and minor tributaries
Sources:
U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Census Bureau Geography Division Census Hydrography, New York State, 2001
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Flood Protection and Dam Safety.
Water Quality Classification, 2007
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Water Assessment and Management.
Water Body Inventory, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Navigable Waterways in the Buffalo District where Department of the
Army Permits are Required. January 1999.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 15

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-1: Land Cover Impact Analysis within the 2,400-foot wide Study Areas and
within the Proposed Route ROW
Proposed Route
2,400-foot wide Study
Class Value
NLCD Classification
ROW
Area
11
Open Water
0.2%
0.4%
21
Developed, Open Space
1.9%
3.6%
22
Developed, Low Intensity
1.7%
1.5%
23
Developed, Medium Intensity
0.7%
0.2%
41
Deciduous Forest
27.6%
25.5%
42
Evergreen Forest
6.9%
7.2%
43
Mixed Forest
3.2%
3.9%
52
Shrub/Scrub
8.3%
7.5%
71
Grassland/Herbaceous
0.0%
0.6%
81
Pasture/Hay
20.3%
23.9%
82
Cultivated Crops
21.7%
18.8%
90
Woody Wetlands
7.6%
6.6%
92
Emergent/Herbaceous Wetlands
0.0%
0.2%
Grand Total
100.0%
100.0%
Table 4.10.2-2: Avian Species which Potentially Breed within the Proposed Route Study Area
Family

Common Name

Scientific Name

NYS Legal Status

Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae

Cooper's Hawk
Northern Goshawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Northern Harrier

Protected-Special Concern
Protected-Special Concern
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Threatened

Accipitridae

Bald Eagle

Alaudidae
Alcedinidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Apodidae
Ardeidae
Ardeidae
Ardeidae
Ardeidae

Horned Lark
Belted Kingfisher
Wood Duck
Blue-winged Teal
Mallard
American Black Duck
Gadwall
Canada Goose
Mute Swan
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Chimney Swift
Great Blue Heron
American Bittern
Green Heron
Least Bittern
Black-crowned NightHeron
Cedar Waxwing
Whip-poor-will
Northern Cardinal
Indigo Bunting

Accipiter cooperii
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter striatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo lineatus
Buteo platypterus
Circus cyaneus
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Eremophila alpestris
Ceryle alcyon
Aix sponsa
Anas discors
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas rubripes
Anas strepera
Branta canadensis
Cygnus olor
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Chaetura pelagica
Ardea herodias
Botaurus lentiginosus
Butorides virescens
Ixobrychus exilis
Nycticorax nycticorax

Protected

Bombycilla cedrorum
Caprimulgus vociferus
Cardinalis cardinalis
Passerina cyanea

Protected
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Protected

Ardeidae
Bombycillidae
Caprimulgidae
Cardinalidae
Cardinalidae

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Grassland
Species*

Threatened
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Game Species
Game Species
Game Species
Game Species
Game Species
Game Species
Protected
Game Species
Game Species
Protected
Protected
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Threatened

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 16

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-2: Avian Species which Potentially Breed within the Proposed Route Study Area
Family

Common Name

Cathartidae
Certhiidae
Charidriidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Corvidae
Corvidae
Corvidae
Cuculidae

Rose-breasted
Grosbeak
Turkey Vulture
Brown Creeper
Killdeer
Rock Pigeon
Mourning Dove
American Crow
Common Raven
Blue Jay
Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Cuculidae

Black-billed Cuckoo

Emberizidae

Grasshopper Sparrow

Emberizidae
Emberizidae
Emberizidae

Dark-eyed Junco
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow

Emberizidae

Savannah Sparrow

Emberizidae
Emberizidae
Emberizidae
Emberizidae
Emberizidae

Falconidae
Fringillidae
Fringillidae
Fringillidae
Hirundinidae

Eastern Towhee
Vesper Sparrow
Clay-colored Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
White-throated
Sparrow
American Kestrel
American Goldfinch
House Finch
Purple Finch
Barn Swallow

Hirundinidae

Cliff Swallow

Hirundinidae
Hirundinidae

Purple Martin
Bank Swallow
Northern Roughwinged Swallow
Tree Swallow
Red-winged Blackbird
Bobolink
Baltimore Oriole
Orchard Oriole
Brown-headed
Cowbird
Common Grackle
Eastern Meadowlark
Black Tern
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Great Black-backed
Gull

Cardinalidae

Emberizidae

Hirundinidae
Hirundinidae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Icteridae
Laridae
Laridae
Laridae
Laridae

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Scientific Name

NYS Legal Status

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Protected

Cathartes aura
Certhia americana
Charadrius vociferus
Columba livia
Zenaida macroura
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus corax
Cyanocitta cristata
Coccyzus americanus
Coccyzus
erythropthalmus
Ammodramus
savannarum
Junco hyemalis
Melospiza georgiana
Melospiza melodia
Passerculus
sandwichensis
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Pooecetes gramineus
Spizella pallida
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla

Protected
Protected
Protected
Unprotected
Protected
Game Species
Protected
Protected
Protected

Grassland
Species*

Protected
Protected-Special Concern

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Protected
Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Protected
Protected

Zonotrichia albicollis

Protected

Falco sparverius
Carduelis tristis
Carpodacus mexicanus
Carpodacus purpureus
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota
Progne subis
Riparia riparia
Stelgidopteryx
serripennis
Tachycineta bicolor
Agelaius phoeniceus
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Icterus galbula
Icterus spurius

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Molothrus ater

Protected

Quiscalus quiscula
Sturnella magna
Chlidonias niger
Larus argentatus
Larus delawarensis

Protected
Protected
Endangered
Protected
Protected

Larus marinus

Protected

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 17

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-2: Avian Species which Potentially Breed within the Proposed Route Study Area
Family

Common Name

Scientific Name

NYS Legal Status

Laridae
Mimidae
Mimidae
Mimidae
Paridae

Sterna caspia
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma rufum
Baeolophus bicolor

Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected
Protected

Poecile atricapillus

Protected

Dendroica coronata

Protected

Dendroica discolor
Dendroica fusca
Dendroica magnolia

Protected
Protected
Protected

Dendroica pensylvanica

Protected

Dendroica petechia
Dendroica pinus

Protected
Protected

Dendroica virens

Protected

Geothlypis trichas

Protected

Mniotilta varia

Protected

Oporornis philadelphia
Seiurus aurocapilla

Protected
Protected

Seiurus motacilla

Protected

Seiurus noveboracensis
Setophaga ruticilla

Protected
Protected

Vermivora chrysoptera

Protected-Special Concern

Parulidae

Caspian Tern
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
Brown Thrasher
Tufted Titmouse
Black-capped
Chickadee
Yellow-rumped
Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Chestnut-sided
Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Pine Warbler
Black-throated Green
Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Black-and-white
Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana
Waterthrush
Northern Waterthrush
American Redstart
Golden-winged
Warbler
Blue-winged Warbler

Protected

Parulidae

Brewster's Warbler

Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Passeridae

Nashville Warbler
Canada Warbler
Hooded Warbler
House Sparrow
Double-crested
Cormorant
Ruffed Grouse
Wild Turkey
Ring-necked
Pheasant
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied
Woodpecker
Red-headed
Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker
Common Moorhen

Vermivora pinus
Vermivora pinus x V.
chrysoptera
Vermivora ruficapilla
Wilsonia canadensis
Wilsonia citrina
Passer domesticus

Protected
Protected
Protected
Unprotected

Phalacrocorax auritus

Protected

Bonasa umbellus
Meleagris gallopavo

Game Species
Game Species

Phasianus colchicus

Game Species

Colaptes auratus
Dryocopus pileatus

Protected
Protected

Melanerpes carolinus

Protected

Paridae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae
Parulidae

Phalacrocoracidae
Phasianidae
Phasianidae
Phasianidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Picidae
Rallidae

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Melanerpes
erythrocephalus
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus

Grassland
Species*

Protected

Protected-Special Concern
Protected
Protected

Sphyrapicus varius

Protected

Gallinula chloropus

Game Species
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 18

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-2: Avian Species which Potentially Breed within the Proposed Route Study Area
Family

Common Name

Scientific Name

NYS Legal Status

Rallidae
Rallidae

Porzana carolina
Rallus limicola

Game Species
Game Species

Regulus satrapa

Protected

Actitis macularia
Bartramia longicauda
Gallinago delicata
Scolopax minor

Protected
Threatened
Game Species
Game Species

Sitta canadensis

Protected

Sitta carolinensis

Protected

Bubo virginianus
Megascops asio
Strix varia
Sturnus vulgaris

Protected
Protected
Protected
Unprotected

Polioptila caerulea

Protected

Piranga olivacea

Protected

Archilochus colubris

Protected

Troglodytidae
Troglodytidae

Sora
Virginia Rail
Golden-crowned
Kinglet
Spotted Sandpiper
Upland Sandpiper
Wilson's Snipe
American Woodcock
Red-breasted
Nuthatch
White-breasted
Nuthatch
Great Horned Owl
Eastern Screech-Owl
Barred Owl
European Starling
Blue-gray
Gnatcatcher
Scarlet Tanager
Ruby-throated
Hummingbird
Marsh Wren
Sedge Wren

Protected
Threatened

Troglodytidae

Carolina Wren

Cistothorus palustris
Cistothorus platensis
Thryothorus
ludovicianus
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Catharus fuscescens
Catharus guttatus
Hylocichla mustelina
Sialia sialis
Turdus migratorius
Contopus virens
Empidonax alnorum
Empidonax minimus
Empidonax traillii

Regulidae
Scolopacidae
Scolopacidae
Scolopacidae
Scolopacidae
Sittidae
Sittidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Sturnidae
Sylviidae
Thraupidae
Trochilidae

Troglodytidae
Troglodytidae
Turdidae
Turdidae
Turdidae
Turdidae
Turdidae
Tyrannidae
Tyrannidae
Tyrannidae
Tyrannidae

Grassland
Species*

Protected

House Wren
Protected
Winter Wren
Protected
Veery
Protected
Hermit Thrush
Protected
Wood Thrush
Protected
Eastern Bluebird
Protected
American Robin
Protected
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Protected
Alder Flycatcher
Protected
Least Flycatcher
Protected
Willow Flycatcher
Protected
Great Crested
Tyrannidae
Myiarchus crinitus
Protected
Flycatcher
Tyrannidae
Eastern Phoebe
Sayornis phoebe
Protected
Tyrannidae
Eastern Kingbird
Tyrannus tyrannus
Protected
Vireonidae
Yellow-throated Vireo
Vireo flavifrons
Protected
Vireonidae
Warbling Vireo
Vireo gilvus
Protected
Vireonidae
Red-eyed Vireo
Vireo olivaceus
Protected
Vireonidae
Blue-headed Vireo
Vireo solitarius
Protected
Source: New York State Breeding Bird Atlas 2000 [Internet]. 2000 - 2005. Release 1.0. Albany (New York): New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. [updated 2007 Jun 11; cited 2008 Jun 17]. Available from:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html
*Grassland species list based on Sauer, J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J. E. Hines. 1995. The Grassland Bird
Home Page. Version 95.0. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available from http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/grass.htm

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 19

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-3: Reptiles and Amphibians Which Potentially Occur within the Proposed Route
ROW
Family Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Ambystomatidae
Blue-Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma laterale
Ambystomatidae
Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma maculatum
Plethodontidae
Northern Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus fuscus
Plethodontidae
Allegheny Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Plethodontidae
Northern Two-lined Salamander
Eurycea bislineata
Plethodontidae
Northern Spring Salamander
Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus
Plethodontidae
Four-Toed Salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum
Plethodontidae
Northern Redback Salamander
Plethodon cinereus cinereus
Salamandridae
Red-spotted Newt
Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens
Bufonidae
Eastern American Toad
Bufo americanus americanus
Hylidae
Gray Treefrog
Hyla versicolor
Hylidae
Northern Spring Peeper
Pseudacris crucifer crucifer
Hylidae
Western Chorus Frog
Pseudacris triseriata
Ranidae
Mink Frog
Rana septentrionalis
Ranidae
Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
Ranidae
Green Frog
Rana clamitans melanota
Ranidae
Pickerel Frog
Rana palustris
Ranidae
Northern Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Ranidae
Wood Frog
Rana sylvatica
Chelydridae
Common Snapping Turtle
Chelydra serpentina serpentina
Emydidae
Painted Turtle
Chrysemys picta
Emydidae
Spotted Turtle
Clemmys guttata
Emydidae
Wood Turtle
Clemmys insculpta
Emydidae
Bog Turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Emydidae
Blanding's Turtle
Emydoidea blandingii
Colubridae
Northern Ringneck Snake
Diadophis punctatus edwardsii
Colubridae
Eastern Milk Snake
Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum
Colubridae
Smooth Green Snake
Liochlorophis vernalis
Colubridae
Northern Water Snake
Nerodia sipedon sipedon
Colubridae
Northern Brown Snake
Storeria dekayi dekayi
Colubridae
Northern Redbelly Snake
Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata
Colubridae
Eastern Ribbon Snake
Thamnophis sauritus
Colubridae
Common Garter Snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Sources:
New York State Herps Atlas Project [Internet] 1999-2007. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Albany, New York. (Accessed June 17, 2008) Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html
AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [Internet]. 2008. Berkeley, California:
AmphibiaWeb. Available at: http://amphibiaweb.org/. (Accessed: Jun 17, 2008).

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 20

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-4: Odonates Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Route ROW
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Aeshnidae
Aeshna canadensis
Canada Darner
Aeshnidae
Aeshna constricta
Lance-tipped Darner
Aeshnidae
Aeshna verticalis
Green-striped Darner
Aeshnidae
Anax junius
Common Green Darner
Aeshnidae
Basiaeschna janata
Springtime Darner
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa
Fawn Darner
Aeshnidae
Gomphaeschna furcillata
Harlequin Darner
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx aequabilis
River Jewelwing
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx maculata
Ebony Jewelwing
Coenagrionidae
Amphiagrion saucium
Eastern Red Damsel
Coenagrionidae
Argia fumipennis violacea
Violet (Variable) Dancer
Coenagrionidae
Argia moesta
Powdered Dancer
Coenagrionidae
Chromagrion conditum
Aurora Damsel
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma annexum
Northern Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma boreale
Boreal Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma carunculatum
Tule Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma civile
Familiar Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma ebrium
Marsh Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma exsulans
Stream Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma geminatum
Skimming Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma hageni
Hagen's Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma signatum
Orange Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma vernale
Vernal Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma vesperum
Vesper Bluet
Coenagrionidae
Ischnura posita
Fragile Forktail
Coenagrionidae
Ischnura verticalis
Eastern Forktail
Coenagrionidae
Nehalennia gracilis
Sphagnum Sprite
Coenagrionidae
Nehalennia irene
Sedge Sprite
Corduliidae
Cordulia shurtleffii
American Emerald
Corduliidae
Dorocordulia lepida
Petite Emerald
Corduliidae
Dorocordulia libera
Racket-tailed Emerald
Corduliidae
Epitheca canis
Beaverpond Baskettail
Corduliidae
Epitheca cynosura
Common Baskettail
Corduliidae
Epitheca princeps
Prince Baskettail
Corduliidae
Epitheca spinigera
Spiny Baskettail
Corduliidae
Somatochlora linearis
Mocha Emerald
Corduliidae
Somatochlora tenebrosa
Clamp-tipped Emerald
Corduliidae
Somatochlora walshii
Brush-tipped Emerald
Corduliidae
Williamsonia fletcheri
Ebony Boghaunter
Gomphidae
Arigomphus villosipes
Unicorn Clubtail
Gomphidae
Gomphus borealis
Beaverpond Clubtail
Gomphidae
Gomphus descriptus
Harpoon Clubtail
Gomphidae
Gomphus exilis
Lancet Clubtail
Gomphidae
Gomphus lividus
Ashy Clubtail
Gomphidae
Gomphus spicatus
Dusky Clubtail
Gomphidae
Hagenius brevistylus
Dragonhunter
Gomphidae
Stylogomphus albistylus
Eastern Least Clubtail

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 21

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-4: Odonates Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Route ROW
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Lestidae
Lestes disjunctus
Northern Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes dryas
Emerald Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes forcipatus
Sweetflag Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes inaequalis
Elegant Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes rectangularis
Slender Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes unguiculatus
Lyre-tipped Spreadwing
Lestidae
Lestes vigilax
Swamp Spreadwing
Libellulidae
Celithemis elisa
Calico Pennant
Libellulidae
Erythemis simplicicollis simplicicollis
Eastern Pondhawk
Libellulidae
Erythrodiplax berenice
Seaside Dragonlet
Libellulidae
Ladona julia
Chalk-fronted Corporal
Libellulidae
Leucorrhinia frigida
Frosted Whiteface
Libellulidae
Leucorrhinia glacialis
Crimson-ringed Whiteface
Libellulidae
Leucorrhinia hudsonica
Hudsonian Whiteface
Libellulidae
Leucorrhinia intacta
Dot-tailed Whiteface
Libellulidae
Leucorrhinia proxima
Belted Whiteface
Libellulidae
Libellula incesta
Slaty Skimmer
Libellulidae
Libellula luctuosa
Widow Skimmer
Libellulidae
Libellula pulchella
Twelve-spotted Skimmer
Libellulidae
Libellula quadrimaculata
Four-spotted Skimmer
Libellulidae
Nannothemis bella
Elfin Skimmer
Libellulidae
Pachydiplax longipennis
Blue Dasher
Libellulidae
Pantala flavescens
Wandering Glider
Libellulidae
Plathemis lydia
Common Whitetail
Libellulidae
Sympetrum internum
Cherry-faced Meadowhawk
Libellulidae
Sympetrum obtrusum
White-faced Meadowhawk
Libellulidae
Sympetrum rubicundulum
Ruby Meadowhawk
Libellulidae
Sympetrum semicinctum
Band-winged Meadowhawk
Libellulidae
Sympetrum vicinum
Autumn Meadowhawk
Libellulidae
Tramea lacerata
Black Saddlebags
Macromiidae
Didymops transversa
Stream Cruiser
Macromiidae
Macromia illinoiensis
Swift River Cruiser
Sources:
Abbott, J.C. 2007. OdonataCentral: An online resource for the distribution and identification of Odonata. Texas
Natural Science Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Available at http://www.odonatacentral.org. Accessed
June 23, 2008.
Kondratieff, B.C. 2000. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) of the United States. Jamestown, ND: Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available at
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/insects/dfly/index.htm (Version 12DEC2003). Accessed June 23, 2008.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 22

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-5: Fish Species which Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Route
Family
Common Name
Scientific Name
Acipenseridae
Lake Sturgeon
Acipenser fulvescens
Amiidae
Bowfin
Amia calva
Anguillidae
American Eel
Anguilla rostrata
Catostomidae
Quillback
Carpiodes cyprinus
Catostomidae
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomidae
Creek Chubsucker
Erimyzon oblongus
Catostomidae
Silver Redhorse
Moxostoma anisurum
Catostomidae
Golden Redhorse
Moxostoma erythrurum
Catostomidae
Shorthead Redhorse
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Catostomidae
Greater Redhorse
Moxostoma valenciennesi
Centrarchidae
Rock bass
Ambloplites rupestris
Centrarchidae
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Centrarchidae
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Centrarchidae
Smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu
Centrarchidae
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
Centrarchidae
Black Crappie
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Clupeidae
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Clupeidae
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Clupeidae
Gizzard Shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
Cottidae
Slimy Sculpin
Cottus cognatus
Cottidae
Deepwater Sculpin
Myoxocephalus thompsoni
Cyprinidae
Central Stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinidae
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
Cyprinidae
Redside Dace
Clinostomus elongatus
Cyprinidae
Lake Chub
Couesius plumbeus
Cyprinidae
Common Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinidae
Cutlips Minnow
Exoglossum maxillingua
Cyprinidae
Brassy Minnow
Hybognathus hankinsoni
Cyprinidae
Eastern Silvery Minnow
Hybognathus regius
Cyprinidae
Common Shiner
Luxilis cornutus
Cyprinidae
Golden Shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Cyprinidae
Emerald Shiner
Notropis atherinoides
Cyprinidae
Bridle Shiner
Notropis bifrenatus
Cyprinidae
Blackchin Shiner
Notropis heterodon
Cyprinidae
Blacknose Shiner
Notropis heterolepis
Cyprinidae
Spottail Shiner
Notropis hudsonius
Cyprinidae
Rosyface Shiner
Notropis rubellus
Cyprinidae
Sand Shiner
Notropis stramieneus
Cyprinidae
Mimic Shiner
Notropis volucellus
Cyprinidae
Bluntnose Minnow
Pimephales notatus
Cyprinidae
Fathead Minnow
Pimephales promelas
Cyprinidae
Eastern Blacknose Dace
Rhinichthys atratulus atratulus
Cyprinidae
Longnose Dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
Cyprinidae
Rudd
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Cyprinidae
Creek Chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
Cyprinidae
Fallfish
Semotilus corporalis
Cyprinidae
Pearl Dace
Semotilus margarita margarita

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 23

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-5: Fish Species which Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Route
Family
Common Name
Scientific Name
Esocidae
Grass Pickerel
Esox americanus vermiculatus
Esocidae
Northern Pike
Esox lucius
Esocidae
Muskellunge
Esox masquinongy
Fundulidae
Banded Killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
Gasterosteidae
Brook Stickleback
Culaea inconstans
Gasterosteidae
Threespine Stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Gobiidae
Round Goby
Neogobius melanostomus
Hiodontidae
Mooneye
Hiodon tergisus
Ictaluridae
Brown Bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ictaluridae
Yellow Bullhead
Ictalurus natalis
Ictaluridae
Brown Bullhead
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictaluridae
Channel Catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictaluridae
Stonecat
Noturus flavus
Ictaluridae
Tadpole Madtom
Noturus gyrinus
Ictaluridae
Margined Madtom
Noturus insignis
Lepisosteidae
Longnose Gar
Lepisosteus osseus
Lotidae
Burbot
Lota lota
Moronidae
White Perch
Morone americana
Moronidae
White Bass
Morone chrysops
Osmeridae
Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Percidae
Fantail Darter
Etheostoma flabellare
Percidae
Johnny Darter
Etheostoma nigrum
Percidae
Tessellated Darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
Percidae
Yellow Perch
Perca flavescens
Percidae
Logperch
Percina caprodes
Percidae
Walleye
Sander vitreus
Percopsidae
Trout-Perch
Percopsis omiscomaycus
Petromyzontidae
Sea Lamprey
Petromyzon marinus
Salmonidae
Lake Herring
Coregonus artedii
Salmonidae
Lake Whitefish
Coregonus clupeaformis
Salmonidae
Bloater
Coregonus hoyi
Salmonidae
Pink Salmon
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Salmonidae
Coho Salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Salmonidae
Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmonidae
Chinook Salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salmonidae
Round Whitefish
Prosopium cylindraceum
Salmonidae
Atlantic Salmon
Salmo salar
Salmonidae
Brown Trout
Salmo trutta
Salmonidae
Brook Trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salmonidae
Lake Trout
Salvelinus namaycush
Sciaenidae
Freshwater Drum
Aplodinotus grunniens
Umbridae
Central Mudminnow
Umbra limi
Sources:
Fish of the Great Lakes, Wisconsin Sea Great, The Fish of Lake Ontario. Last Updated 2001. Available at:
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/framefish.html. Accessed June 24, 2008.
Smith, L.C. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 24

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.10.2-6: Mussel Species which Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Route
Common Name
Scientific Name
Eastern elliptio
Elliptio complanata
Yellow lampmussel
Lampsilis cariosa
Pocketbook
L. ovata
Eastern lampmussel
L. radiata
Brook lasmigona
Lasmigona compressa
Eastern pearlshell
Margaritifera margaritifera
Eastern floater
Pyganodon cataracta
Creeper
Strophitus undulatus
Source:
Straver, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26.

Table 4.10.2-7: NYSDEC Listed Rare or Protected Species within the Study Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
NY State Legal Status
NY State Rank
S1-Critically
Indiana Bat*
Myotis soldalis
Endangered
imperiled
Upland Sandpiper
Bartramia longicauda
Threatened
S3B-Vulnerable
Cattle Egret
Bubulcus ibis
Protected
S2-Imperiled
S1-Critically

Caspian Tern
Hydroprogne caspia
Protected
imperiled
Autumnal WaterCallitriche
Endangered - Historical
S1-Critically
starwort
hermaphroditica
Record
imperiled
Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
Protected - Historical Record
S3B-Vulnerable
S1-Critically
Blackchin Shiner
Notropis heterodon
Unlisted - Historical Record
imperiled
*Also listed as federally endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Formerly Sterna caspia
Source: NYSDEC Correspondence, September 10, 2008

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 25

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-1: Slope Compilation Totals For Proposed Route


Slope
Mainland
less than 10%
10-20%
21-40%
greater than 40%
Total
Galloo Island
less than 10%
10-20%
21-40%
greater than 40%
Total

Approximate Distance (miles)

Percent of Route

38.97
0.06
0
0
39.03

99.8%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

2.62
0
0
0
2.62

100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Table 4.11-2: Bedrock Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Town

Station
Number

Bedrock Material

Jefferson

Henderson

0-7

Trenton Group

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Trenton Group

Jefferson

Henderson

Trenton Group

Jefferson

Ellisburg

9-16

Trenton Group

Jefferson

Ellisburg

16-19

Utica Shale

Jefferson

Ellisburg

20

Pulaski Formation

Jefferson

Ellisburg

20

Utica Shale

Jefferson

Ellisburg

21

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Sandy Creek

21-26

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Richland

27

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Sandy Creek

27

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Richland

28-30

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Richland

31

Oswego Sandstone

Oswego

Richland

31

Pulaski Formation

Oswego

Richland

32-37

Oswego Sandstone

Oswego

Mexico

38

Oswego Sandstone

Oswego

Richland

38

Oswego Sandstone

County

Bedrock Formation

Mainland

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Lorraine & Trenton


Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents
Lorraine & Trenton
Meta. Equivalents

& Black River Groups and


& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and
& Black River Groups and

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 26

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-2: Bedrock Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
County

Town

Oswego
Mexico
Galloo Island
Hounsfield (Galloo
Jefferson
Island)

Station
Number
38-41
0-2

Bedrock Material
Grimsby Formation
Trenton Group

Bedrock Formation
Medina Group and Queenstown Formation
Lorraine & Trenton & Black River Groups and
Meta. Equivalents

Table 4.11-3: Surficial Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Station

County

Town

0
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
19

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Material

Mainland
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Till moraine
Bedrock
Till moraine
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Till moraine
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till moraine
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Till moraine
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Subaqueous fan
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Lacustrine silt and clay
Bedrock
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Recent alluvium

Acreage within the 2,400foot-wide Study Area

6.91
276.55
128.41
141.94
0.52
104.39
172.16
108.73
157.93
9.93
201.51
74.63
170.43
106.09
194.74
19.77
55.11
41.61
229.25
276.81
170.38
106.39
276.96
270.52
5.46
276.81
276.65
0.78
188.02
84.82
21.62
112.47
143.72
109.53
167.86
126.66
148.77
41.66
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 27

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-3: Surficial Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Station

County

Town

Material

Acreage within the 2,400foot-wide Study Area

19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Mexico

Lacustrine sand
Till
Recent alluvium
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Till
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Recent alluvium
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Till
Kame deposits
Lacustrine sand
Kame deposits
Lacustrine sand

203.55
31.24
32.28
244.80
205.32
47.47
23.81
170.61
106.38
163.84
113.63
204.43
72.34
201.17
76.10
43.14
68.23
166.09
65.14
215.46
239.13
23.41
51.40
171.06
49.50
86.22
56.37
0.33
133.85
89.80
181.70
254.45
14.93
81.93
188.60
233.79
43.41
2.65
216.31
55.83
169.51
37.15
70.04
0.00
277.48
98.54
59.24

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 28

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-3: Surficial Geology within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Station

County

Town

38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
41

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

0-3

Jefferson

Acreage within the 2,400foot-wide Study Area

Material

Kame deposits
Lacustrine sand
Kame deposits
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Kame deposits
Lacustrine sand
Lacustrine silt and clay
Galloo Island
Hounsfield (Galloo Island) Lacustrine silt and clay

Table 4.11-4: Summary of Surficial Geology Material


Acreage within the 2,400-foot wide
Material
Study Area
Acres
Percentage (%)
Mainland
Subaqueous fan
106.39
0.94
Recent alluvium
160.16
1.41
Kame deposits
298.55
2.64
Till moraine
343.81
3.04
Bedrock
589.73
5.21
Till
1,811.22
15.99
Lacustrine sand
2,957.01
26.11
Lacustrine silt and clay
5,059.29
44.67
Total
11,326.16
Galloo Island
Lacustrine silt and clay
600.00
100.00

0.64
117.83
94.88
181.62
269.65
4.40
104.49
36.16
166.70
600.00

Acreage within the Proposed


Route ROW
Acres
Percentage (%)
7.74
8.51
19.05
22.39
34.53
114.02
184.12
318.7
709.06

1.09
1.20
2.69
3.16
4.87
16.08
25.97
44.95

46.66

100.00

Table 4.11-5: Active Mines within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

Town

Mine
ID

County

Status

Commodity

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

60002

Active

Sand and
Gravel

41

Oswego

Mexico

70855

Active

Sand and
Gravel

Mine
Description
Unconsolidated
Materials Surface
Mine
Unconsolidated
Materials Surface
Mine

Acres
Controlled
by Permittee
at Mine Site
87
89

Source:
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources Mining Database, accessed July 30, 2008.

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 29

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-6: Gas and Oil Wells within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

County

Town

23
23
24
24
24
25
25
29

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland

Well Type

Total
Well
Depth
(Feet)

Well
Status

Deepest
Geologic
Formation
Penetrated

Well
Elevation
(feet
above sea
level)

Not Listed
Gas Development
Gas Development
Not Listed
Not Listed
Gas Development
Gas Development
Dry Hole

0
1,100
0
0
0
0
0
1,100

Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown

Not Applicable
Trenton
Trenton
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Trenton
Trenton
Trenton

0
410
0
0
0
320
350
385

Source:
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources Gas & Oil Well Database, accessed July 30, 2008.
Table 4.11-7: Characteristics of Soil Types within 2,400 feet (1,200 feet on each side) of the Proposed Route
Farmland of
Water depth
Soil
Erosion
Prime
Slope
Soil Name
Statewide
upper limit
Type
Hazard
Farmland
Range
Importance
(ft)
Jefferson County
AlA
Alton gravelly loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
NR
AlB
Alton gravelly loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
AlC
Alton gravelly loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
NR
AlD
Alton gravelly loam
Moderate
N
N
15-25
NR
AmA
Amenia loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
1.5-3
AmB
Amenia loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-3
ArB
Arkport fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
ArC
Arkport fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
NR
BfF
Benson channery silt loam
Severe
N
N
25-50
NR
BgB
Benson-Galoo Complex
slight
N
N
0-8
NR
BkC
Bice very stony fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
0-15
NR
BoA
Bombay loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
1.2-2
BoB
Bombay loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.2-2
Ca
Canandaigua silt loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0-0.5
Cb
Canandaigua mucky silt loam
slight
N
N
NR
0
ClA
Chaumont silty clay
slight
N
Y
0-3
0.5-1.5
ClB
Chaumont silty clay
slight
N
Y
3-8
0.5-1.5
CnB
Collamer silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2.0
CnC
Collamer
Moderate
N
Y
NR
1.5-2.0
CnC3
Collamer, severely eroded
Moderate
N
N
NR
1.5-2.0
CoB
Collamer silt loam
Moderate
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
DdB
Darien silt loam
Moderate
Y
N
3-8
0.5-1.5
DeB
Deerfield loamy fine sand
Moderate
N
Y
0-8
1.5-3
ElB
Elmridge fine sandy loam
Moderate
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2.5
FaB
Farmingham
slight
N
Y
0-8
NR
Fu
Fluvaquents
slight
N
N
NR
0
GaA
Galen fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
1.5-2
GaB
Galen fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
GbB
Galoo-Rock outcrop complex
slight
N
N
0-8
NR
GlA
Galway silt loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
1.5-3.3
GlB
Galway silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-3.3
GlC
Galway silt loam
slight
N
N
8-15
1.5-3.3
GmC
Galway very stony silt loam
slight
N
N
0-15
1.5-3.3
GtB
Groton gravelly loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
NR
GtC
Groton gravelly loam
slight
N
N
8-15
NR
GuB
Groton variant gravelly loam
slight
N
Y
0-8
NR

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Bedrock
Depth
(in)

Hydric
Soils

NR
NR
NR
NR
20-36
20-36
NR
NR
10-20
10-20 or 2-10
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20-40
NR
NR
NR
NR
40-60
NR
NR
20-40
10-20
NR
NR
NR
0-10
20-40
20-40
20-40
20-40
NR
NR
20-40

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 30

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.11-7: Characteristics of Soil Types within 2,400 feet (1,200 feet on each side) of the Proposed Route
Farmland of
Water depth
Soil
Erosion
Prime
Slope
Soil Name
Statewide
upper limit
Type
Hazard
Farmland
Range
Importance
(ft)
Gv
Guffin clay
slight
N
Y
NR
0-0.5
Hb
Halsey muck loam
slight
N
N
NR
0-0.5
Hc
Hamlin silt loam
slight
Y
N
NR
NR
HuB
Hudson silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
HuC
Hudson silt loam
Moderate
N
Y
8-15
1.5-2
HyE3
Hudson/Vergennes
Severe
N
N
15-35
1.5-2
IrB
Ira gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.1-2
LaB
Lagross-Haights complex
slight
Y
N
NR
2.0-3
Lc
Livingston muck silty clay
slight
N
N
NR
0-1
Ma
Madalin silt loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0
MdB
Madrid sand loam
NR
Y
N
3-8
NR
MdC
Madrid sand loam
NR
Y
N
8-15
NR
MdD
Madrid sand loam
NR
N
N
15-25
NR
MoA
Massena silt loam
NR
N
N
0-3
NR
MoB
Massena silt loam
NR
N
N
3-8
NR
MpB
Massena very stony loam
NR
N
N
0-8
NR
Mv
Minoa fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
NR
0.5-1.5
NlA
Nellis loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
NR
NlB
Nellis loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
NlC
Nellis loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
NR
NlD
Nellis loam
Moderate
N
N
15-25
NR
NmE
Nellis and Madrid soils
Moderate
N
N
NR
NR
Nn
Newstead
slight
N
N
NR
0.5-1
NoA
Niagara
slight
N
N
0-3
0.5-1.5
NoB
Niagara
slight
N
N
3-8
0.5-1.5
PhA
Phelps gravelly loam
Very Severe
N
N
NR
0
PhB
Phelps gravelly loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
Pn
Pits, Sand and Gravel
NR
N
N
NR
NR
PoB
Plainfield
slight
N
N
0-8
NR
PoC
Plainfield, rolling
slight
N
N
NR
NR
PpD
Plainfield and Windsor
Moderate
N
N
NR
NR
RhA
Rhinebeck silt loam
slight
N
N
0-3
0.5-1.5
Sa
Saprists and Aquents, ponded
NR
N
N
NR
NR
SdA
Scriba gravelly silt loam
NR
N
Y
0-3
NR
SdB
Scriba gravelly silt loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
0.5-1.5
Sh
Shaker fine sandy loam
NR
N
N
NR
NR
SoB
Sodus gravelly silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
SoC
Sodus gravelly silt loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
NR
SoD
Sodus gravelly silt loam
slight
N
N
15-25
NR
Su
Sun loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0
Sv
Sun, very stony
slight
N
N
NR
0
Te
Teel
slight
Y
N
NR
1.5-2
Ub
Udothents, smoothed
NR
N
N
NR
NR
W
Water
NR
N
N
NR
NR
Wa
Wallkill silt loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0-1
We
Wayland
slight
N
N
NR
0
AIB
Alton gravelly loam
NR
Y
N
3-8
NR
PhA
Phelps gravelly loam
NR
Y
N
0-3
NR
PoB
Plainsfield sand
NR
N
N
0-8
NR
SoD
Sodus gravelly silt loam
NR
N
N
15-25
NR
WmB
Williamson
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.1-1.5
WnB
Wilpoint silty clay loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.1-1.5
WnC
Wilpoint silty clay loam
Moderate
N
Y
8-15
1.2-2.0
WoB
Worth gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
0-8
NR
Oswego County
AAC
Adams-Windsor complex
slight
N
Y
NR
NR
AAD
Adams-Windsor complex
Moderate
N
N
NR
NR

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Bedrock
Depth
(in)
20-40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
17-24
16-22
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20-40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
12-18
NR
15-24
15-24
15-24
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15-24
20-40
20-40
NR
NR
NR

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 31

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Hydric
Soils
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

Table 4.11-7: Characteristics of Soil Types within 2,400 feet (1,200 feet on each side) of the Proposed Route
Farmland of
Water depth
Soil
Erosion
Prime
Slope
Soil Name
Statewide
upper limit
Type
Hazard
Farmland
Range
Importance
(ft)
AgA
Alton gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
NR
AgB
Alton gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
NR
AgC
Alton gravelly fine sandy loam
NR
N
N
0-3
NR
AoB
Alton gravelly silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
AvB
Amboy very fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
2-6
1.6-2.4
AvC3
Amboy
Moderate
N
N
6-12
1.5-2.4
AwC3 Amboy-Williamson complex
Moderate
N
N
NR
1.5-2.4
AyD3
Amboy soils
Moderate
N
N
NR
1.5-2.4
AyE3
Amboy soils
Severe
N
N
NR
1.5-2.4
BrB
Brockport silty clay loam
slight
N
Y
0-6
0.5-1.5
Cd
Carlisle Muck
Very Severe
N
N
NR
0
Ce
Carlisle Muck
Very Severe
N
Y
NR
0
CFL
Cut and fill land
slight
N
N
NR
NR
CHC
Colton-Hinckley complex
slight
N
N
NR
NR
CHD
Colton-Hinckley complex
Moderate
N
N
NR
NR
CHE
Colton-Hinckley complex
Moderate
N
N
NR
NR
DeB
Deerfield loamy fine sand
Moderate
N
Y
0-8
1.5-3
EmB
Elmwood fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
2-6
1.5-3
EpB
Empeyville gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.2-1.7
EpC
Empeyville gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
1.2-1.7
FA
Fluvaquents and Udifluvents
slight
N
N
NR
0-6
Fn
Fonda mucky silt loam
slight
N
N
NR
0-0.5
Fr
Fredon gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
NR
0-1.5
Gr
Granby loamy fine sand
slight
N
N
NR
0
HkB
Hinckley gravelly loamy sand
slight
N
Y
3-8
NR
HkC
Hinckley gravelly loamy sand
slight
N
N
8-15
NR
HuB
Hudson silt loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
HW
Humaquepts and Fibrists
Slight/Very Severe
N
N
NR
0
IrA
Ira gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
0-3
1.2-1.7
IrB
Ira gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.1-2
IrC
Ira gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
1.1-2
IsC
Ira-Sodus gravelly fine sandy loams
slight
N
Y
NR
1.2-1.7
IUD
Ira-Sodus very stony soils
Moderate
N
N
NR
1.2-1.7
Lf
Lamson very fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0-0.5
Ma
Madalin silt loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0
Mf
Middlebury loam
slight
Y
N
NR
1.2-2
Mn
Minoa very fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
NR
0.5-1.5
Na
Naumburg loamy fine sand
slight
N
Y
NR
0.5-1.5
NGB
Naumburg-Granby complex
slight
N
Y
NR
0.5-1.5
OaB
Oakville loamy fine sand
slight
Y
N
0-6
NR
Pa
Palms muck
Very Severe
N
N
NR
0
RaB
Raynham silt loam
slight
N
N
0-6
0.5-2
RhA
Rhinebeck silt loam
slight
N
N
0-3
0.5-1.5
RhB
Rhinebeck silt loam
slight
N
N
3-8
0.5-1.5
RU
Rumney loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0-1.5
SDB
Scriba very stony soils
slight
N
N
NR
1-1.2
ScB
Scriba gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
0-8
0.5-1.2
ScC
Scriba gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
8-15
0.5-1.2
SdB
Scriba very stony soils
NR
N
N
3-8
NR
SgB
Sodus gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
Y
N
3-8
NR
SgC
Sodus gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
8-15
NR
SgD
Sodus gravelly fine sandy loam
Moderate
N
N
15-25
NR
SHF
Sodus soils
Severe
N
N
NR
NR
Su
Sun loam
slight
N
Y
NR
0
Sw
Swanton fine sandy loam
slight
N
N
NR
0-1.5
W
Water
NR
N
N
NR
NR
WbB
Westbury gravelly fine sandy loam
NR
N
Y
0-8
0-1.5

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Bedrock
Depth
(in)
NR
NR
NR
NR
20-30
20-30
20-30
20-30
20-30
20-40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20-40
16-21
16-21
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
16-22
17-24
17-24
16-22
16-22
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
12-15
12-15
12-15
NR
15-24
15-24
15-24
15-24
NR
NR
NR
17-22

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 32

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Hydric
Soils
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N

Table 4.11-7: Characteristics of Soil Types within 2,400 feet (1,200 feet on each side) of the Proposed Route
Farmland of
Water depth
Soil
Erosion
Prime
Slope
Soil Name
Statewide
upper limit
Type
Hazard
Farmland
Range
Importance
(ft)
WDB
Westbury/Dannemora
slight
N
N
NR
0.5-1.5
WlA
Williamson
slight
Y
N
0-2
1.3-1.9
WlB
Williamson
slight
Y
N
2-6
1.3-1.9
WlC
Williamson
slight
N
Y
6-12
1.3-1.9
WnB
Wilpoint silty clay loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.1-1.5
WnC
Wilpoint silty clay loam
Moderate
N
Y
8-15
1.2-2.0
WoB
Worth gravelly fine sandy loam
slight
N
Y
0-8
NR
WYD
Worth and Empeyville
Moderate
N
N
NR
1.2-1.7
WoCK Worth gravelly fine sandy loam
NR
Y
Y
NR
NR
Galloo Island
Be
Beaches
NR
N
N
NR
NR
BgB
Benson-Galoo Complex
slight
N
N
0-8
NR
ClA
Chaumont silty clay
slight
N
Y
0-3
0.5-1.5
ClB
Chaumont silty clay
slight
N
Y
3-8
0.5-1.5
CoB
Collamer silt loam
Moderate
Y
N
3-8
1.5-2
FaB
Farmingham
slight
N
Y
0-8
NR
GbB
Galoo-Rock outcrop complex
slight
N
N
0-8
NR
GlA
Galway silt loam
slight
Y
N
0-3
1.5-3.3
Gv
Guffin clay
slight
N
Y
NR
0-0.5
Nn
Newstead
slight
N
N
NR
0.5-1
Sa
Saprists and Aquents, ponded
NR
N
N
NR
NR
W
Water
NR
N
N
NR
NR
WnB
Wilpoint silty clay loam
slight
N
Y
3-8
1.1-1.5

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Bedrock
Depth
(in)
17-22
17-24
17-24
17-24
20-40
20-40
NR
NR
20-30
NR
10-20 or 2-10
20-40
NR
40-60
10-20
0-10
20-40
20-40
20-40
NR
NR
20-40

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 33

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Hydric
Soils
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N

Table 4.12.2-1: Streams Crossed by the Proposed Route ROW


Stream
Crossed by
Proposed
Route
Centerline
(Y/N)
Y

Station
Number

County

Jefferson

Henderson

Unnamed

Jefferson

Henderson

Stony Creek, Lower, and tribs

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

11

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

12

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek

13

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

Town

Stream Name

Stream
Classification*

C
C(T)

13

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

C(T)

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

16

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Bear Creek and tribs

C(TS)

16

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Bear Creek and tribs

C(TS)

17

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

18

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

18

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

19

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Census Feature
Class Description

NR
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
NR
Naturally Flowing
Water Features

Description
(Water Index Number)

NR
stream and tribs, from mouth to
Smithville (Ont 40)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 41)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 41)
total length of select tribs, from Sawyer
Pt to Selkirk (Ont 42 thru 51)

NR
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
NR
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
NR
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
NR

NR
stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams
(Ont 44)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams
(Ont 44)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams
(Ont 44)
NR
NR
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont

tribs, from mouth to


45)
tribs, from mouth to
45)
tribs, from mouth to
45)

entire stream and tribs (Ont 45- 4)


entire stream and tribs (Ont 45- 4)
stream and tribs, from mouth to
Mannsville (Ont 47)
stream and tribs, from mouth to
Mannsville (Ont 47)
stream and tribs, from mouth to
Mannsville (Ont 47)
stream and tribs, from mouth to
Mannsville (Ont 47)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 34

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-1: Streams Crossed by the Proposed Route ROW


Stream
Crossed by
Proposed
Route
Centerline
(Y/N)

Stream
Classification*

Station
Number

County

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

24

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

24

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

26

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

26

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

27

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

27

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

28

Oswego

Richland

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

28

Oswego

Richland

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

Town

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Stream Name

Census Feature
Class Description

Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features

Description
(Water Index Number)

stream and tribs, from mouth to


Mannsville (Ont 47)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
total length of select tribs, from Sawyer
Pt to Selkirk (Ont 42 thru 51)
total length of select tribs, from Sawyer
Pt to Selkirk (Ont 42 thru 51)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona
(Ont 50)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 35

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-1: Streams Crossed by the Proposed Route ROW


Stream
Crossed by
Proposed
Route
Centerline
(Y/N)

Stream
Classification*

Station
Number

County

29

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

C(T)

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

C(T)

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River

C(T)

31

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

32

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

34

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

34

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

37

Oswego

Richland

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

37

Oswego

Richland

North Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

38

Oswego

Mexico

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

39

Oswego

Mexico

Snake Creek and tribs

40

Oswego

Mexico

Sage Creek and tribs

Town

Stream Name

Census Feature
Class Description

Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features
Naturally Flowing
Water Features

Description
(Water Index Number)

stream and select tribs, from mouth


abv Altmar (Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs, from mouth
abv Altmar (Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs, from mouth
abv Altmar (Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs, from mouth
abv Altmar (Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs, from mouth
abv Altmar (Ont 53 (portion 1))

to
to
to
to
to

entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)


entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 55)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)

*NYSDEC surface water classification. Class C waters can take additional designations, including "T" for waters able to support trout populations and "TS" for
waters able to support trout spawning.
NR = No record

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 36

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-2: Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Station
Number
1 and 2-3
(Galloo
Island)
4

County
Jefferson
Jefferson

Town
Hounsfield
(Galloo
Island)
Henderson

Stream Name

Stream
Classification*

Unnamed

NR

Unnamed

Jefferson

Henderson

Stony Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(T)

Jefferson

Henderson

Stony Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(T)

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Little Stony Creek and tribs

Jefferson

Henderson

Little Stony Creek and tribs

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

C(T)

10

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

11

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

11

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

11

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

12

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek

13

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

13

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Census Feature
Class Description
Shoreline of perennial
water feature
NR
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features
Naturally
Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
NR

Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water
Flowing Water

NR
stream and tribs, from mouth to Smithville (Ont
40)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Smithville (Ont
40)
NR
NR
NR
entire stream and tribs (Ont 41)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 41)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 41)
NR
total length of select
Selkirk (Ont 42 thru
total length of select
Selkirk (Ont 42 thru

tribs, from Sawyer Pt to


51)
tribs, from Sawyer Pt to
51)

stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams (Ont 44)


stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams (Ont 44)
total length of select tribs, from Sawyer Pt to
Selkirk (Ont 42 thru 51)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams (Ont 44)
NR
stream and tribs, from mouth to Adams (Ont 44)
NR

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 37

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-2: Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

County

Stream Name

Stream
Classification*

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

C(T)

14

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

15

Jefferson

Ellisburg

South Sandy Creek, Low, and minor tribs

16

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Bear Creek and tribs

C(TS)

16

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Bear Creek and tribs

C(TS)

17

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

18

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

18

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

19

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

19

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

19

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

20

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Skinner Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

Town

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Census Feature
Class Description
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
stream and select tribs, from mouth to
Giddingsville (Ont 45)
stream and select tribs, from mouth to
Giddingsville (Ont 45)
NR
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont
stream and select
Giddingsville (Ont

tribs,
45)
tribs,
45)
tribs,
45)
tribs,
45)

from mouth to
from mouth to
from mouth to
from mouth to

entire stream and tribs (Ont 45- 4)


entire stream and tribs (Ont 45- 4)
stream
47)
stream
47)
stream
47)
stream
47)
stream
47)
stream
47)

and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont


and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont
and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont
and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont
and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont
and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont

entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)


entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Mannsville (Ont
47)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 38

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-2: Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

County

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(TS)

21

Jefferson

Ellisburg

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

22

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Lindsey Creek and tribs

C(T)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

23

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Minor Tribs to L. Ontario

24

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

24

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

24

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

Town

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Stream Name

Stream
Classification*

Census Feature
Class Description
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 48)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
total length of select
Selkirk (Ont 42 thru
total length of select
Selkirk (Ont 42 thru

tribs, from Sawyer Pt to


51)
tribs, from Sawyer Pt to
51)

stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)


stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 39

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-2: Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

County

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

25

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

C(TS)

26

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

26

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Little Sandy Creek, Lower, and tribs

27

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

27

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

27

Oswego

Sandy Creek

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

28

Oswego

Richland

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

28

Oswego

Richland

Deer Creek/Little Deer Creek and tribs

29

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

C(T)

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

C(T)

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

C(T)

30

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River

C(T)

31

Oswego

Richland

Salmon River, Lower, and minor tribs

32

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

33

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

33

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

34

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

Town

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Stream Name

Stream
Classification*

C
C(TS)

Census Feature
Class Description
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
stream and tribs, from mouth to Lacona (Ont 50)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 52)
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))
stream and select tribs,
(Ont 53 (portion 1))

from mouth to abv Altmar


from mouth to abv Altmar
from mouth to abv Altmar
from mouth to abv Altmar
from mouth to abv Altmar
from mouth to abv Altmar

entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)


entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 40

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.12.2-2: Streams within the 2,400-foot Study Area of the Proposed Route
Station
Number

County

34

Oswego

Richland

Little Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

37

Oswego

Richland

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

37

Oswego

Richland

North Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

38

Oswego

Mexico

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

38

Oswego

Richland

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

C(T)

38

Oswego

Mexico

South Branch Grindstone Creek and tribs

39

Oswego

Mexico

Snake Creek and tribs

39

Oswego

Mexico

Sage Creek and tribs

40

Oswego

Mexico

Sage Creek and tribs

40

Oswego

Mexico

Sage Creek and tribs

Town

Stream
Classification*

Stream Name

Census Feature
Class Description
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features
Naturally Flowing Water
Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 2)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 54- 4)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 55)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)

*NYSDEC surface water classification. Class C waters can take additional designations, including "T" for waters able to support trout populations and "TS" for
waters able to support trout spawning.
NR = No record

Table 4.12.2-3 Rivers and Streams within 2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation*
Name

Stream Classification

Census Feature Class Description

Sage Creek Tributary


Sage Creek

C
C

Naturally Flowing Water Features


Naturally Flowing Water Features

Description
(Water Index Number)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)
entire stream and tribs (Ont 57)

*No rivers or streams occur within 2,400 feet of the Galloo Substation

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 41

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.1-1: NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands


Station
Number

0
(Galloo Island)

0
(Galloo Island)

1
(Galloo Island)

2
(Galloo Island)

2
(Galloo Island)

3
(Galloo Island)

1
24
24
24
25
26
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
32
32
33
33
33
34
35
35
36
37

County

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Town

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Hounsfield
(Galloo Island)

Henderson
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

Total Regulated Acres


within the Proposed
Route ROW

Total Length
Crossed by the
Proposed Route
(miles)

NYSDEC
Region

NYSDEC Wetland
Identification
Number

Wetland
Classification

Total Regulated Acres


within the 2,400-foot
Study Area

GL-2

0.12

GL-3

8.31

GL-2

66.17

GL-1

1.28

GL-2

30.92

0.11

GL-1

25.60

1.09

0.04

6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

Y-1
SC-16
SC-16
SC-16
RI-72
RI-73
RI-19
RI-19
RI-8
RI-8
RI-8
RI-8
RI-8
RI-19
RI-31
RI-31
RI-31
RI-31
RI-31
RI-40
PI-15
PI-15
PI-14
MX-12

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2

0.59
1.79
0.94
1.54
0.04
1.38
5.04
1.10
0.44
6.06
1.41
0.61
0.49
0.06
1.70
13.42
1.26
0.91
0.31
0.50
0.36
17.03
6.36
30.38

0.55

0.03

0.68

0.04

0.06
0.67

0.04

0.08
0.31
0.32
1.53

0.02
0.08
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 42

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.1-1: NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands


Station
Number

County

37
38
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
40

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Town

NYSDEC
Region

NYSDEC Wetland
Identification
Number

Wetland
Classification

Total Regulated Acres


within the 2,400-foot
Study Area

Total Regulated Acres


within the Proposed
Route ROW

Total Length
Crossed by the
Proposed Route
(miles)

Richland
Mexico
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

MX-21
MX-21
MX-21
MX-22
MX-22
MX-8
MX-8
MX-8
MX-8
MX-8

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0

8.12
14.54
13.44
20.19
2.10
4.68
1.54
0.85
27.74
7.11

0.51
2.23
0.42

0.03
0.12
0.01

0.25

0.01

Table 4.13.1-2: NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands within 2,400 feet of Proposed Substations
Substation
Wetland ID
Classification
GL-2
3
Galloo Island
GL-3
3
MX-8
2
MX-8
2
Mexico
MX-8
2
MX-11
2

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Regulated Acres
245.19
24.25
70.19
0.61
2.17
2.04

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 43

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-1: Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the Proposed Route ROW
Portion of the
Proposed
Route

Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo
Galloo

Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island
Island

Station
Number

County

0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Town

Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield

NWI Code

PFO/SS1E
PFO/SS1E
PFO1E
L1UBH
L2UBH
PFO/SS1E
PFO/SS1E
PFO1/4E
PFO1E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1E
L1UBH
L2UBH
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PEM5E
PFO1/4E
PFO1E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/UBF
PSS1E

Community Type

Total
Regulated
Acres

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the 2,400foot Study
Area

Forested
Forested
Forested
Lake
Lake
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub
Lake
Lake
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub

22.29
40.15
66.48
158613.35
463.72
2.46
28.56
53.75
66.48
3.90
3.27
158613.35
463.72
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.24
0.25
1.07
53.75
25.16
3.90
5.07
5.16
9.22
0.66

0.53
12.39
0.18
46.63
25.37
2.45
28.08
5.01
45.16
0.47
3.26
0.83
6.06
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.24
0.25
1.07
9.41
2.48
3.43
5.07
5.15
0.00
0.66

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the
Proposed
Route ROW

Total
Length
Crossed by
the
Proposed
Route
(miles)

0.49

2.93

0.16

0.32
1.14

0.00
0.07

0.18

0.01

0.22

0.02

1.26
0.88
0.52

0.09
0.05
0.03

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 44

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-1: Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the Proposed Route ROW
Portion of the
Proposed
Route

Station
Number

County

Galloo Island
Galloo Island
Galloo Island
Galloo Island
Galloo Island
Galloo Island
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland

2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Town

Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Hounsfield
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Henderson
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg

NWI Code

PSS1E
PUBH
L1UBH
L2UBH
PSS1/UBF
PUBH
PEM5E
PFO1E
PFO1E
PFO1E
PSS1/EM5A
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
L2UBH
PSS1/EM5E
PSS1/EM5E
L2UBH
PEM5A
PEM5A
PEM5E
PEM5E
PFO/SS1E
R3UBH
R3USG
R3UBH
R3USG
PUBFh
PUBHh

Community Type

Total
Regulated
Acres

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the 2,400foot Study
Area

Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Lake
Lake
Scrub-Shrub/Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub
Emergent
Forested
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Emergent
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Riverine
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom

9.46
13.41
158613.35
463.72
9.22
13.41
5.12
13.83
30.87
13.83
4.44
23.44
6.22
23.44
6.22
2056.08
18.50
18.50
2056.08
0.30
2.44
0.20
0.27
17.96
50.58
1.01
50.58
1.01
0.09
0.45

9.46
0.47
43.88
75.87
9.22
12.93
0.07
9.00
17.26
1.10
4.44
4.19
2.48
0.87
3.73
2.59
2.32
8.84
0.12
0.30
2.43
0.20
0.27
5.11
0.07
0.51
11.16
0.50
0.09
0.45

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the
Proposed
Route ROW

Total
Length
Crossed by
the
Proposed
Route
(miles)

1.53

0.05

0.15

0.22

0.01

0.03
0.01
0.39
0.13

0.19

0.01

0.64
0.04

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 45

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-1: Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the Proposed Route ROW
Portion of the
Proposed
Route

Station
Number

County

Town

NWI Code

Community Type

Total
Regulated
Acres

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the 2,400foot Study
Area

Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland

14
15
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
22
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28

Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Ellisburg
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

PSS1E
R3UBH
PFO/SS1Eb
PSS1/UBFb
PEM5A
PSS1/EM5C
PUBHb
PEM5A
PEM5A
PUBFh
PSS1/UBFh
PUBFh
PSS1B
PFO/SS1C
PFO1A
PFO/SS1A
PFO/SS1C
PFO1A
PSS1/EM5C
PUBFx
PUBHh
PEM5C
PFO/SS1C
PSS1/EM5Fb
PSS1Eh
PUBFh
PEM5E
PFO1A
PSS1/EM5A
PSS1E

Scrub-Shrub
Riverine
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Scrub-Shrub/Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub/Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Forested
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub

2.36
29.17
1.78
5.77
1.26
5.14
0.95
1.26
8.78
0.18
1.31
0.18
0.67
2.26
1.63
1.78
2.26
1.63
1.15
0.09
0.57
1.01
1.76
2.06
0.54
0.13
1.06
4.29
2.00
0.44

2.36
7.21
1.78
5.76
0.00
2.08
0.95
1.26
8.77
0.18
1.31
0.18
0.67
0.72
1.53
0.69
1.54
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.57
1.01
0.10
2.06
0.01
0.06
0.30
4.29
2.00
0.44

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the
Proposed
Route ROW

Total
Length
Crossed by
the
Proposed
Route
(miles)

0.5

0.03

1.57
0.18

0.09
0.02

0.09
0.2

0
0.01

0.44

0.04

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 46

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-1: Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the Proposed Route ROW
Portion of the
Proposed
Route

Station
Number

Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland

28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
32
32
32
33
33
33

County

Town

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

NWI Code

PUBFx
PUBFx
PUBHh
PUBHh
PEM5/USEx
PEM5E
PFO1A
PFO1A
PFO1A
PSS1/EM5C
PSS1A
PSS1A
PSS1E
PSS1E
PSS1E
PUBF
PUBHh
PEM5Eh
PUBF
PUBF
PUBF
PUBHh
R3UBH
PEM5E
PFO1C
PSS1C
PSS1C
PSS1E
PUBHh
PUBHx

Community Type

Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Emergent
Forested
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Riverine
Emergent
Forested
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom

Total
Regulated
Acres

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the 2,400foot Study
Area

0.02
0.30
0.70
0.68
0.57
1.06
0.87
0.33
5.03
2.56
1.17
3.13
0.50
0.81
1.22
0.19
0.70
2.97
0.33
0.21
0.31
4.58
168.82
1.09
0.64
15.61
15.61
5.90
0.65
0.57

0.02
0.30
0.69
0.02
0.57
0.76
0.87
0.33
5.03
2.56
0.81
3.12
0.50
0.81
1.22
0.19
0.01
2.14
0.33
0.21
0.31
4.58
10.67
1.09
0.64
2.21
13.39
5.90
0.40
0.57

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the
Proposed
Route ROW

Total
Length
Crossed by
the
Proposed
Route
(miles)

0.02
0.67

0.04

0.59
0.53

0.03
0.03

0.87

0.05

0.22

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 47

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-1: Federal Wetland Inventory Freshwater Wetlands within 2,400-foot Study Area and the Proposed Route ROW
Portion of the
Proposed
Route

Station
Number

Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland
Mainland

34
34
34
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
41

County

Town

NWI Code

Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego

Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Richland
Richland
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico

PUBH
PUBH
PUBHh
PSS1E
PUBHh
PEM5/UBF
PUBFh
PUBFh
PUBFh
PUBH
PSS1E
PSS1E
PSS1E
PSS1E
PFO1A
PFO1E
PFO4/1A
PFO4/1A
PSS1E
PFO1/SS1E
PFO1/SS1E
PUBFh
PFO1/SS1E
PFO1E
PFO4/1E
PSS1C
PSS1E
PUBHh
PUBFx

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Community Type

Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Emergent/Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Forested
Forested
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Forested/Scrub-shrub
Forested
Forested
Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
Unconsolidated Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom

Total
Regulated
Acres

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the 2,400foot Study
Area

0.17
0.35
0.65
1.54
0.41
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.30
20.96
0.70
11.32
5.49
3.45
2.83
12.90
12.90
5.49
38.48
28.79
0.12
28.79
6.49
2.44
9.69
29.68
0.47
0.10

0.17
0.35
0.26
1.54
0.41
0.32
0.31
0.04
0.04
0.30
16.03
0.70
7.29
3.79
3.44
2.83
11.22
1.67
1.69
1.99
4.18
0.12
7.66
2.49
2.19
9.08
0.24
0.47
0.10

Total
Regulated
Acres within
the
Proposed
Route ROW

0.32
0.03
0
0

Total
Length
Crossed by
the
Proposed
Route
(miles)

0.03

0.03

0.08
1.6

0.09

0.7

0.04

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 48

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.13.2-2: Federal Wetlands within 2,400 feet of the Mexico Substation*
NWI Code
Community Type
PSS1A
Scrub-Shrub
PFO1E
Forested
PSS1/EM5E
Scrub-Shrub/Emergent
PUBFh
Unconsolidated Bottom
PFO1E
Forested
PFO1E
Forested
PUBFx
Unconsolidated Bottom
PUBHh
Unconsolidated Bottom
PSS1E
Scrub-Shrub

Acres
6.11
2.71
1.51
0.10
20.99
14.04
0.10
1.46
13.12

*No NWI wetlands occur within 2,400 feet of the Galloo Island substation

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 49

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.14-1: Flood Zones within 2,400 Feet Study Area and Proposed Route ROW
Acres within 2,400 feet of
County
Town
Station Number
Zone
the Proposed Route
Mainland
0
AE
2.70
0
X
3.84
0
X500
0.98
1
AE
0.78
1
X
275.30
1
X500
0.67
2
AE
2.99
2
X
270.92
3
AE
0.14
Jefferson
Henderson
3
X
276.55
4
AE
1.58
4
X
275.14
5
AE
32.05
5
X
240.76
5
X500
3.45
6
X
276.64
7
X
269.74
8
A
15.84
8
X
213.52
Jefferson
Ellisburg
8
X
41.63
9
X
276.94
10
X
276.89
11
AE
3.42
11
X
273.67
12
AE
16.74
12
X
259.37
13
X
276.95
14
X
277.57
15
A
13.04
15
X
259.94
16
A
7.74

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Acres within the


Proposed Route ROW
0
0
0
0.16
17.09
0.01
0
17.33
0
17.33
0
17.33
0.51
16.62
0.21
17.33
17.33
1.06
13.64
2.61
17.33
17.33
0.07
17.27
0.85
16.48
17.33
17.33
0.37
16.94
0.54
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 50

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.14-1: Flood Zones within 2,400 Feet Study Area and Proposed Route ROW
Acres within 2,400 feet of
County
Town
Station Number
Zone
the Proposed Route
16
X
270.21
17
X
277.53
18
X
275.57
19
X
276.59
20
X
277.21
21
X
205.42
21
X
71.32
22
X
277.13
23
A
14.13
23
X
263.48
Oswego
Sandy Creek
24
X
276.90
25
X
277.40
26
X
277.60
27
X
215.56
Oswego
Richland
27
X
65.17
28
A
29.47
28
X
233.20
29
A
6.71
29
X
265.38
30
A
2.01
30
AE
46.21
30
X
210.76
30
X500
17.92
31
A
5.73
31
X
265.90
32
A
14.13
32
X
255.39
33
A
9.79
33
X
260.87
34
A
11.78
34
X
265.56
35
A
0.05
35
X
274.88

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Acres within the


Proposed Route ROW
16.80
17.33
17.32
17.33
17.33
12.83
4.46
17.33
0.69
16.65
17.33
17.33
17.33
13.49
3.86
0.91
16.37
0.33
16.98
0
4.12
12.69
0.52
0
17.31
0.71
16.60
0
17.31
0.71
16.62
0
17.32
Exhibit 4 Tables Page 51

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.14-1: Flood Zones within 2,400 Feet Study Area and Proposed Route ROW
Acres within 2,400 feet of
Acres within the
County
Town
Station Number
Zone
the Proposed Route
Proposed Route ROW
36
A
0.00
0
36
X
276.83
17.33
37
A
38.63
1.96
37
X
238.98
15.37
38
A
17.94
0.27
38
X
100.59
7.22
38
X
157.85
9.84
39
X
276.64
17.33
Oswego
Mexico
40
X
274.18
17.32
41
X
307.37
16.43
Galloo Island
0
AE
0.00
0
X
53.49
0.28
0
X500
0.00
1
AE
4.74
1
X
197.46
17.85
Jefferson
Hounsfield
1
X500
0.00
2
AE
0.42
2
X
280.14
18.29
3
A
25.67
1.37
3
AE
2.61
3
X
84.73
10.02

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 52

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.14-2 Summary of Flood Zones in Proposed ROW


MAINLAND
Flood Zone Classification

Acres within the Proposed Route ROW

Percentage (%)

A
AE
X
X500
Total

7.56
5.70
695.39
0.74
709.39

1.1%
0.8%
98.0%
0.1%
100.0%

Flood Zone Classification

Acres within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route

Percentage (%)

A
AE
X
X500
Total

186.98
106.60
11016.84
23.02
11333.45

1.6%
0.9%
97.2%
0.2%
100.0%

Flood Zone Classification

Acres within the Proposed Route ROW

Percentage (%)

A
AE
X
X500
Total

1.37
0.00
46.44
0.00
47.81

2.87%
0.00%
97.13%
0.00%
100.0%

Flood Zone Classification

Acres within 2,400 feet of the Proposed Route

Percentage (%)

A
AE
X
X500
Total

25.67
7.77
615.82
0.00
649.26

4.0%
1.2%
94.8%
0.0%
100.0%

GALLOO ISLAND

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 53

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.15-1: Hazardous Materials within 2,400 foot Study Area


Station
Site
DEC/EPA
County
Town
Number
Name
ID Number
22
Green Haven Community
NY0213845
Oswego Sandy Creek

Regulatory
Sources

Type of Site

Site Issues
NYDES non-major

29

Nmpc Pulaski Service Center

110004393442

Oswego

Richland

Hazardous Waste

29

Daves Body Shop

110008041868

Oswego

Richland

30

F X Caprara Chev Olds Buick

110004407801

Oswego

Richland

unspecified

39

Mapleview Substation

110008016592

Oswego

Mexico

Hazardous Waste

39

Nysdot

110008019116

Oswego

Mexico

Hazardous Waste

39

Nysdot Bin 1031850

110008085053

Oswego

Mexico

Hazardous Waste

RCRA and State


Superfund Program
RCRA and State
Superfund Program
RCRA and State
Superfund Program
RCRA and State
Superfund Program
RCRA and State
Superfund Program
RCRA and State
Superfund Program

Source:
US EPA, Region 2. EPA Region 2 Regulated Facility Data. September 8, 2006.
Table 4.15-2: Hazardous Materials Typically Used for Transmission Line Construction
Type of Material
2-cycle oil (contains distillates and hydrotreated heavy paraffinic)
ABC fire extinguisher
Acetylene gas
Air tool oil
Ammonium hydroxide
Antifreeze (ethylene glycol)
Automatic transmission fluid
Battery acid (in vehicles and in the meter house of the substations)
Bottled oxygen
Brake fluid
Canned spray paint
Chain lubricant (contains methylene chloride)
Connector grease (penotox)
Contact Cleaner 2000
Diesel deicer
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 54

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.15-2: Hazardous Materials Typically Used for Transmission Line Construction
Type of Material
Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel additive
Eye glass cleaner (contains methylene chloride)
Gasoline
Gasoline treatment
Hot stick cleaner (cloth treated with polydimethylsiloxane)
Hydraulic fluid
Insect killer
Insulating oil (inhibited, non-PCB)
Lubricating grease
Mastic coating
Methyl alcohol
Motor oils
Paint thinner
Propane
Puncture seal tire inflator
Safety fuses
Starter fluid
Sulfur hexaflouride (within the circuit breakers in the substations)
Wasp and hornet spray (1,1,1 trichloroethene)
WD-40
ZIP (1,1,1-tricholorethane)
ZEP (safety solvent)

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 55

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.16-1: Typical Noise Levels of Transportation and Construction Equipment in dBA
Equipment
Crane (derrick)
Concrete Vibrator
Compactor
Air Compressor
Concrete Pump, 150 cubic yards per hour
Grader, 13- to 16- foot blade
Mobile Crane, 75 tons
Backhoe
Concrete Mixer
Excavator
Flatbed Truck
Asphalt Truck
Dozer, 250 to 700 horsepower
Front End Loader, 300 to 750 horsepower
Jack Hammer (Paving Breaker)
Piling Auger
Asphalt Spreader (paver)
Concrete Spreader
Off Highway Hauler, 115 tons
Pile Driver / Extractor

Typical Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA)


762
762
802
812
841
851
851
852
852
861
871
882
881
881
882
881
892
892
901
1012

ESERCA, Power Plant Construction Guide, BBN Report 3321, May 1977.
Patterson, W.N., R.A. Ely, and S.M. Swanson, Regulation of Construction Activity Noise, Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Inc., Report 2887, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1974

Table 4.16.4-1: Predicted Sound Levels from Operation of the Substation at the Property
Lines and at Nearby Residences (R)
Location
Predicted Leq(24-hour) in
Predicted Ldn in dBA
dBA
Property Line North
47.2
53.6
Property Line East
48.5
54.9
Property Line South
48.6
55.0
Property Line West
47.7
54.1
R1
37.8
44.2
R2
40.1
46.5
R3
38.7
45.1
R4
39.0
45.4
R5
37.5
43.9

Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 56

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Table 4.17.1-1: 60-Herz EMF Guidelines Established by Health & Safety Organizations
Magnetic
Organization
Electric Field
Field
a
10,000 mG
25 kV/m a
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
b
(occupational)
1,000 mG
1 kV/m b
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
(general public, continuous exposure)
Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the American Industrial Hygiene
Assoc. endorsed (in 2003) ICNIRP's occupational EMF levels for workers
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standard C95.6
(general public, continuous exposure)
U.K., National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection
Agency)
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Draft
Standard, Dec. 2006 c

833 mG

4.2 kV/m

4,170 mG

8.3 kV/m

9,040 mG

5.0 kV/m

833 mG

4.2 kV/m

3,000 mG

4.2 kV/m

Comparison to steady (DC) EMF, encountered as EMF outside the 60-Herz frequency range:
Earth's magnetic field and atmospheric electric fields, steady levels,
typical of environmental exposure d

[550 mG]

[0.2 kV/m up to
> 12 kV/m]

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan, static magnetic field intensity d

[20,000,000
mG]

---

Notes:
a. American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists guidelines for the general worker.
b. American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists guideline for workers with cardiac pacemakers.
c. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/comment/dr_elfstd.pdf; and http://www.arpansa.gov.au/News/events/elf.cfm
d. These EMF are steady fields, and do not vary in time at the characteristic 60-cycles-per-second that power-line
fields do. However, if a person moves in the presence of these fields, the body experiences a time-varying field.

Table 4.17.1-2: State EMF Standards and Guidelines for Transmission Lines
Electric Field
Magnetic Field
State/Line Voltage
On ROW
Edge ROW
On ROW
Edge ROW
69 230 kV
8.0 kV/m
150 mG
2.0 kV/m f
Florida c
10.0 kV/m
200 mG, 250 mG
500 kV
Massachusetts
1.8 kV/m
85 mG
Minnesota
8.0 kV/m
Montana
7.0 kV/m a
1.0 kV/m b
New Jersey
3.0 kV/m
11.8 kV/m
New York c
1.6 kV/m
200 mG
11.0 kV/m d
7.0 kV/m a
Oregon
9.0 kV/m

Notes: mG = milliGauss kV/m = kilovolts per meter


a. Maximum for highway crossings
b. May be waived by the landowner
c. Magnetic fields for winter-normal, maximum line-current capacity
d. Maximum for private road crossings
e. 500 kV double-circuit lines built on existing ROWs
f. Includes the property boundary of a substation
Sources:
Questions and Answers About EMF. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and U.S. Department of
Energy, 2002. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf
Florida, see: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/siting/Rules/62-814-EMF.doc
Copyright ESS Group, Inc., 2008

Exhibit 4 Tables Page 57

j:\a499-000 hounsfield\article vii\application\exhibit 4 tables.doc

Figures

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Interstate 85 Double Circuit


Figure 4.4-1

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Railroad Double Circuit


Figure 4.4-2

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Distribution Line Double Circuit


Figure 4.4-3

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Gas Line Double Circuit


Figure 4.4-4

230 kV Transmission Line Typical ROW Double Circuit


Figure 4.4-5

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Interstate 85 Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-6

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Railroad Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-7

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Distribution Line Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-8

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Adjacent to Gas Line Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-9

230 kV Transmission Line Typical ROW Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-10

08/27/2008

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Underground Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-11

08/27/2008

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Riser Structure Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-12

08/27/2008

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Substation Looking North Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-13
Figure 4.4-13

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Substation Looking West Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-14

08/27/2008

230 kV Transmission Line ROW Tangent Structure Single Circuit


Figure 4.4-15

Location: G:/GIS-Projects/Hounsfield/Hounsfield.mxd

Hounsfield

Water

Galloo Island

!
(

!
(
Stony Island

!
(

!
(

Henderson
!
(4 !
(5 6

Adams
Rodman
7

!
( !
(
8
!
Galloo Island (
- Hounsfield
9

JEFFERSON
COUNTY

!
(
10
!
(
11
!
( 12 13
!
( !
(

11

14

!
( 15
!
(

Ellisburg

!
(

Lorraine

16
17

!
(
18
!
(
19
!
(

_
^

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(

20

21

22
Boylston

23

Sandy Creek
(
24!
25

81

!
(

!
(

26

27

!
(
28
!
( 29
!
(
30

Richland

!
(

!
(
32 31
(
!
( !
33

34

!
(
35
!
(
!
(

V
U
104

Scriba

!
(

New Haven

OSWEGO
COUNTY

36
Albion

37
38

Mexico

!
(
39
40(
!

Williams

!
( 41
!
(
UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION
Hounsfield Wind Farm
Hounsfield, NY
Engineers
Scientists
Consultants

Orwell

Scale: 1" = 25,000'


Source: 1) NYS Museum / NYS Geologic Survey 1999
2) CUGIR Railroads, 2000
3) ESRI Streets, 2002
4) ESRI County and Town boundaries, 2002

Parish

Surficial Geology Legend


af

lb

og

al

fg

ld

pm

ta

alf

h2o

ls

tm

ali

lsc

alp

ki

mb

sc

alt

km

md

sf

New York Surficial


Geologic Map

Figure
4.11-1

Location: G:/GIS-Projects/Hounsfield/Hounsfield.mxd

Brownville

Lyme

Water city
Galloo Island
Hounsfield
Water

Stony Island

!
(1
!
( 2
!
( 3
!
(
Henderson
!
(4 !
(5 6
7
!
( !
(

Adams
Rodman

Galloo Island - Hounsfield

_
^

V
U
104

Oswego city

Scriba

New Haven
Mexico

!
(9
!
( 10
!
( 11
!
( 12 13 14
!
( !
( !
( 15
!
(
Ellisburg 16
!
(
17
!
(18
!
( 19
!
(
20
!
(
21
!
(22
!
(
23
!
(
Sandy Creek
!
24(25
!
(26
!
(27
!
(28
!
( 29
!
(30
!
(31
32
Richland !
(
!
(
33
!
(34
!
( 35
!
(36
!
(37
!
(38
!
(39
40!
81
(
!
( 41
!
(

11

Lorraine

Worth

Boylston

Orwell

Albion

Williams

Parish
Volney

UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION


Hounsfield Wind Farm
Hounsfield, NY
Engineers
Scientists
Consultants

Amboy

Palermo

Scale: 1" = 25,000'


Source: 1) NYS Museum / NYS Geologic Survey 1999
2) CUGIR Railroads, 2000
3) ESRI Streets, 2002
4) ESRI County and Town boundaries, 2002

Bedrock Geology Legend


Oo- Oswego Sandstone

New York Bedrock


Geologic Map

Opw- Pulaski Formation


Ot- Trenton Group
Ou- Utica Shale
SmOq- Grimsby Formation

Figure
4.11-2

Location: G:/GIS-Projects/Hounsfield/00-MXD/Bedrock.mxd

Hounsfield
Water

Galloo Island

Stony Island
Adams

Henderson

Rodman

Galloo Island - Hounsfield

JEFFERSON
COUNTY
Lorraine

Ellisburg

_
^

Worth

Boylston
Sandy Creek

Redfield

Orwell
Richland

OSWEGO
COUNTY
Albion
New Haven

Scriba

Williams

Mexico

Parish
Volney

Palermo
HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM PROJECT
Depth to Bedrock Below Soil Surface
Granby
UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION
Hounsfield Wind Farm
Hounsfield, NY
Engineers
Scientists
Consultants

Amboy
Hastings

Legend
Depth to Bedrock (inches)
1-10

Scale: 1" = 25,000'

1-20

Source: 1) CUGIR Railroads, 2000


2) NRCS, STATSGO2 Soil Data, 2006
3) ESRI County and Town boundaries, 2002

10-20
20-30
20-40
40-60

Towns
Counties
Proposed Transmission Line

Depth to Bedrock
Below Soil Surface
(Inches)
Figure
4.11-3

Potrebbero piacerti anche