HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix_I_-_Wetland_Inventory_Report.pdf
WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield
Tompkins County, New York
Prepared For: Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC
863 Hayts Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
Prepared By: edr Companies (edr)
217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000
Syracuse, New York 13202
Date: January 2013
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 3
1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PERMITS.......................................................................... 4
2.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................... 4
2.2 NEW YORK STATE FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND PROTECTED STREAMS ......................... 6
3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES.................................................................. 7
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS ............................................................................................ 7
3.2 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................. 8
3.3 FEDERAL AND STATE MAPPED WETLANDS AND STREAMS ................................................ 9
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................. 9
4.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 9
4.2 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................. 11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 13
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Area Soils
Table 2. Wetlands and Streams
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Topographic Mapping
Figure 3. Project Area Soils
Figure 4. Surface Waters
Figure 5. NWI Wetlands Mapping
Figure 6. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Mapping
Figure 7. Approximate Wetland Boundaries
Appendix B. Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the request of Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC (the Project Sponsor), edr Companies (edr) investigated
approximately 1,060 acres of leased private land in the Town of Enfield in Tompkins County, New York
(Figure 1). The land, hereafter referred to as the Project Area, is proposed for a 12.6 megawatt (MW) wind-
powered generating facility, the Black Oak Wind Power Project (the Project). The Project Area is dominated
by forest and agricultural land, but also includes areas of pasture, successional shrubland, development,
and wetland communities. As currently conceived, the Project is anticipated to include seven wind turbines,
each with a nameplate capacity of 1.8 MW.
edr was retained by the Project Sponsor to identify all wetlands and streams within or adjacent to the
proposed footprint of Project components. Wetlands and streams were identified during the 2011 growing
season within approximately 100 feet of each identified project component (i.e., the anticipated limit of
disturbance).
1.2 PURPOSE
This wetland inventory report has been prepared in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) currently being prepared by edr in accordance with the requirements of the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This report addresses all potential state and federal
jurisdictional waters proximate to the Project footprint, which were identified in the field by edr ecologists
during the 2011 growing season. This report describes the results of the data collection efforts conducted
by edr, and includes a description of the wetlands and waterbodies that were identified.
This document is intended to identify all on-site jurisdictional areas that could be impacted by Project
development. Construction activities may require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and/or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). If necessary,
a permit application will be submitted under separate cover, after additional fieldwork has been conducted to
flag potentially jurisdictional areas and complete routine wetland determination forms.
1.3 RESOURCES
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources including
United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Mecklenburg NY 7.5 minute quadrangle),
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, NYSDEC
4
freshwater wetlands mapping, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) (currently the Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) Tompkins County Soil Survey, the
NRCS List of Hydric Soils of the State of New York, and recent aerial photography.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in the New York Flora Atlas (Weldy & Werier, 2012), and
wetland indicator status for vegetative species was determined by reference to the National Wetland Plant
List (Lichvar & Kartesz, 2009). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to the wetlands and
deepwater habitats classification system used in NWI mapping (Cowardin, 1979).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS
edr ecologists Jim Pippin and Nate Butera performed the field inventories identifying potentially jurisdictional
wetlands and streams.
Mr. Pippin is an Environmental Project Manager with over 15 years of experience in the environmental field.
He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resources Management from the University of
Maryland at College Park. Professional expertise includes wetland delineations, state and federal wetland
permitting, water quality improvement, ecological surveys, stream and wetland mitigation design and
monitoring, environmental construction monitoring, visual impact assessments, environmental impact
analysis, and SEQRA compliance. Mr. Pippin has experience managing many of edr’s varied
environmental projects such as wetland permitting and ecological surveys for municipalities to full regulatory
review according to SEQRA for large scale energy projects in New York State. Mr. Pippin is also a member
of the American Wind Energy Association and the New York State Wetlands Forum.
Mr. Butera is no longer employed by edr. At the time of his employment, Mr. Butera was an Ecological
Resource Specialist with a Bachelor of Technology degree in Renewable Resources from Morrisville State
College. His four years of professional experience includes wetland delineations, global positioning system
survey and mapping, geographic information system data analysis, and on-site environmental compliance
monitoring. He is a NYS Qualified Inspector for erosion and sediment control and is an Institute for Wetland
and Environmental Education and Research (IWEER) Certified Wetland Delineator.
2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PERMITS
2.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
5
As defined by the USACE, Waters of the United States include all lakes, ponds, streams (intermittent and
perennial), and wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as “Those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions” (EPA, 2001). Such areas are indicated by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). However, as a result of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Supreme Court case (No. 99-1178; January 9, 2001), it has been determined that the USACE
does not have jurisdictional authority over waters that are “nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate” (EPA,
2001). The jurisdictional status of all on-site waters can only be determined following official documentation
provided by the USACE, which typically includes a field visit.
More recently, the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Rapanos, (547 U.S., June 19, 2006), in which it held in
two consolidated cases (the other one was Carabell) that the USACE misinterpreted the Clean Water Act in
determining its jurisdiction over wetland protection. On June 5, 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Army (DOA) issued Clean Water Act jurisdiction guidance following the
Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos and Carabell. A summary of this guidance is as follows:
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Traditional navigable waters.
• Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters.
• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the
tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three
months).
• Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine
whether they have significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent.
• Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent.
• Wetlands adjacent to, but that do not directly abut, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
6
• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent,
or short duration flow).
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not
carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself
and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they
significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional
navigable waters.
• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) requires a permit from the USACE to
construct any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, as well as any proposed action
that would alter or disturb (such as excavation/dredging or deposition of materials) these waters. If the
proposed structure or activity affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of the navigable water, even
if the proposed activity is outside the boundaries of the water body, a permit from the USACE is required.
2.2 NEW YORK STATE FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND PROTECTED STREAMS
The Freshwater Wetlands Act (Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law)
gives the NYSDEC jurisdiction over state-protected wetlands and adjacent areas (100-foot upland buffer).
The Freshwater Wetlands Act requires the NYSDEC to map all state-protected wetlands to allow
landowners and other interested parties a means of determining where state jurisdictional wetlands exist.
To implement the policy established by this Act, regulations were promulgated by the state under 6 NYCRR
Parts 663 and 664. Part 664 of the regulations designates wetlands into four class ratings, with Class I
being the highest or best quality wetland and Class IV being the lowest. In general, wetlands regulated by
the state are those 12.4 acres in size or larger. Smaller wetlands can also be regulated if they are
considered of unusual local importance. A 100-foot adjacent area around the delineated boundary of any
state-regulated wetland is also under NYSDEC jurisdiction. An Article 24 permit is required from the
NYSDEC for any disturbance to a state-protected wetland or an adjacent area, including removing
vegetation.
7
Under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Protection of Waters), the NYSDEC has
regulatory jurisdiction over any activity that disturbs the bed or banks of protected streams. In addition,
small lakes and ponds with a surface area of 10 acres or less, located within the course of a protected
stream, are considered to be part of a stream and are subject to regulation under the stream protection
category of Article 15. Protected stream means any stream, or particular portion of a stream, that has been
assigned by the NYSDEC any of the following classifications or standards: AA, A, B, or C(t) or C(ts) (6
NYCRR Part 701). A classification of AA or A indicates that the best use of the stream is as a source of
water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation;
and fishing. The best usages of Class B waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing.
The best usage of Class C waters is fishing. Streams designated (t) indicate that they support trout, while
those designated (ts) support trout spawning. State water quality classifications of unprotected
watercourses include Class C and Class D streams. Waters with a classification of D are suitable for fishing
and non-contact recreation. An Article 15 permit is required from the NYSDEC for any disturbance to a
stream classified C(t) or higher.
3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The Project Area is located within the Allegheny Plateau section of the Appalachian physiographic division.
The Allegheny Plateau rises from approximately 1,500 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and is dissected by
a series of broad valleys. The valleys have fairly straight courses, smooth, gentle lower slopes, and
relatively steep upper slopes. There are few tributaries other than narrow ravines that have rolling valley
bottoms. The remnants of the plateau still intact are small in area and have a strongly rolling surface
(USDA, 1965). Elevations in the Project Area range from approximately 1,450 feet amsl along the northeast
edge of the Project Area to approximately 1,960 feet amsl at Buck Hill on the southwestern edge of the
Project Area (Figure 2). Land use within the Project Area is dominated by active agriculture, with farms and
single-family rural residences generally occurring along road frontage.
The Soil Survey of Tompkins County, New York (USDA, 1965) has mapped soil types within the Project
Area (see Figure 3). The soil survey indicates that 25 soil mapping units are present within the Project
Area. Of these, Langford and Erie are the dominant soil series. Soil drainage in the Project Area is
predominantly moderately well drained or somewhat poorly drained, with approximately 47 percent of the
on-site soils moderately well drained, approximately 30 percent somewhat poorly drained, approximately 23
percent well drained, and less than 1 percent poorly drained to very poorly drained. Soil textures in the
8
Project Area are primarily channery silt loams. Table 1 lists the soil mapping units found within the Project
Area and their characteristics.
A review of the National Hydric Soil List for New York State indicates that portions of the Project Area
contain hydric soils, as determined by the NRCS (2012a). Hydric soils covering approximately 31 percent of
the Project Area include Erie channery silt loams, Volusia channery silt loams, Middlebury and Tioga silt
loams, and Alluvial Land (see Figure 3).
Table 1. Project Area Soils
Mapping Unit Series Slope (%) Drainage2 Hydric3
Ab Alluvial land -- WD-VPD Yes
BaC Bath channery silt loam 5-15 WD No
BaC3 Bath channery silt loam, eroded 5-15 WD No
BaD Bath channery silt loam 15-25 WD No
BgC Bath and Volois gravelly silt loam 5-15 WD No
BgD Bath and Volois gravelly silt loam 15-25 WD No
BoE Bath and Volois gravelly silt loam 25-35 WD No
CnB Chenango gravelly loam, fan 0-8 WD No
EbB Erie channery silt loam 3-8 SPD Yes
EbC Erie channery silt loam 8-15 SPD Yes
EcA Ellery, Chippewa, and Alden soils 0-8 PD-VPD Yes
LaB Langford channery silt loam 2-8 MWD No
LaC Langford channery silt loam 8-15 MWD No
LaC3 Langford channery silt loam, eroded 8-15 MWD No
LnD Lordstown channery silt loam 15-25 WD No
LnE Lordstown channery silt loam 25-35 WD No
LoF Lordstown soils 35-70 WD No
MaB Mardin channery silt loam 2-8 MWD No
MaC Mardin channery silt loam 8-15 MWD No
MaC3 Mardin channery silt loam, eroded 8-15 MWD No
MfD Mardin and Langford soils 15-25 MWD No
Mo Middlebury and Tioga silt loams -- MWD-SPD Yes
VbB Volusia channery silt loam 3-8 SPD Yes
VbC Volusia channery silt loam 8-15 SPD Yes
VbC3 Volusia channery silt loam, eroded 8-15 SPD Yes
1 Soil drainage is represented by the following abbreviations: "WD" = well drained, "MWD" = moderately well drained, "SPD" =
somewhat poorly drained, “PD” = poorly drained, and "VPD" = very poorly drained.
2 "Yes" indicates this soil is listed in the 2012 National Hydric Soil List (NRCS, 2012a).
3.2 HYDROLOGY
The Project Area lies in both the Seneca and Owego-Wappasening River drainage basins (USGS
Hydrologic Units 04140201 and 02050103, respectively) and the Enfield Creek and Cayuta Creek
Headwaters watersheds. The majority of surface hydrology on the Project Area is generated by
9
precipitation and surface water run-off from adjacent land. Total annual precipitation (from 1971 to 2000)
averaged 37.82 inches in nearby Ithaca, NY (NRCS, 2012b). The Project Area contains a number of small
ponds and streams. Mapped surface water resources within the Project Area are described below.
Cayuta Inlet to the west and Enfield Creek to the northeast are the dominant hydrologic features in the
vicinity of the Project Area. Streams in the western half of the Project Area drain to Cayuta Inlet and
streams in the eastern half drain to Enfield Creek. Cayuta Inlet flows to Cayuta Lake and Cayuta Creek
approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project Area. Cayuta Creek then drains to the Susquehanna River
approximately 30 miles south of the Project Area. Enfield Creek flows to Cayuga Inlet approximately 6 miles
east of the Project Area. Cayuga Inlet then drains to Cayuga Lake approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the
Project Area.
Small farm ponds/open water areas are also interspersed throughout the area. Generally, they are found in
open field settings, adjacent to houses and barns, or within wetlands. Typically, these ponds are excavated
or diked, and are less than 0.5 acre in size. Banks are typically well-defined and emergent wetland
vegetation tends to be limited or lacking. Water depths, although not verified, are anticipated to be 4 feet or
more. They may be used as a source of water for livestock as well as for fishing and aesthetic purposes.
3.3 FEDERAL AND STATE MAPPED WETLANDS AND STREAMS
NWI mapping indicates that there are four federally-mapped wetlands located within the Project Area,
totaling 1.04 acres (Figure 5). These wetlands are classified as palustrine, unconsolidated bottom,
permanently flooded, diked/impounded (PUBHh).
Review of NYSDEC mapping indicates there is one wetland located in the vicinity of the Project Area that is
regulated under Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Figure 6). State-regulated wetland ME-5
is located just outside the Project Area along the Tompkins/Schuyler county Line. This wetland is
designated as a Class IV wetland by the NYSDEC and totals 126 acres in size.
There are no NYSDEC protected streams within the Project Area. All streams within the Project Area are
classified as class C streams.
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION
4.1 METHODOLOGY
10
edr personnel performed field identification of wetlands and streams in areas proposed for wind power
development during the 2011 growing season. Field investigations were performed only on wetlands and
streams with potential impacts resulting from Project components; including turbines, turbine workspaces,
access roads, substation, potential laydown areas, public road intersections (for potential
widening/improvements), and buried electrical interconnect. Wetland fieldwork specifically focused on an
area within approximately 100 feet of each identified Project component.
According to USACE methodologies, wetland hydrology, when combined with a hydrophytic plant
community and hydric soils, indicate the presence of a wetland. The identification of wetland boundaries
was made by edr personnel based on the methodology described in the USACE Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), with a focus on hydrology and vegetation. Determination of
wetland boundaries was also guided by the methodologies presented in the Interim Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (USACE, 2009).
Attention was given to the identification of potential hydrologic connections between wetlands and areas that
could influence their jurisdictional status.
It is important to reiterate that the field effort summarized in this report identified wetland boundaries, but did
not include the data collection necessary to be considered a full delineation. Should a permit application be
required, additional fieldwork will be completed, including flagging wetland boundaries and collecting data
for USACE Routine Wetland Determination forms.
4.2 RESULTS
edr ecologists identified a total of eight (8) wetlands and streams within 100 feet of the Project footprint.
Information pertaining to individual wetlands and streams is summarized in Table 2. Wetlands were
classified according to the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands and streams
were categorized as one or more of the following community types: emergent wetland, scrub-shrub wetland,
forested wetland, perennial stream, or intermittent stream. All wetlands and streams in the vicinity of Project
components are depicted in Figure 7. Descriptions of each of the communities are presented below.
Table 2. Delineated Wetlands and Streams
Wetland/Stream ID Community Type Figure 7, Sheet #
C Intermittent Stream 2
E Perennial Stream/Intermittent Stream/Emergent 3
J Emergent/Intermittent Stream 1
K Intermittent Stream 1
O Emergent/Intermittent Stream 4
11
Wetland/Stream ID Community Type Figure 7, Sheet #
P Forested/Intermittent Stream/Perennial Stream 4
Q Forested/Scrub-shrub 4
S Emergent 1
4.2.1 WETLANDS
Forested wetland – Forested wetland communities are dominated by trees that are 20 feet or taller, but also
include an understory of shrub and herbaceous species. Two (2) forested or partially forested wetlands
were identified within the Project Area.
Scrub-shrub wetland – Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by dense stands of shrub species less than
20 feet tall. One (1) wetland within the Project Area was found to contain a scrub-shrub community.
Emergent wetland – Four (4) wetland areas were identified within the Project Area as emergent or partially
emergent. Emergent wetlands occur where surface water collects in shallow basins and/or adjacent to open
water. These wetlands are characterized by more persistent and/or deeper inundation, often containing
soils that remain inundated throughout the year. Although the Cowardin classification was used to classify
wetlands, some of the emergent wetlands in this category could be best described according to the Reschke
definition as wet meadow (Reschke, 1990). Wet meadow wetlands are usually found in poorly drained, low-
lying depressional areas. Wet meadow wetlands may resemble grasslands and are typically drier than
other marshes, except during periods of seasonal high water. They generally lack standing water for most
of the year, though snow melt, stormwater runoff, and/or a high water table allows the soil to remain
saturated for a significant portion of the growing season.
Streams - As indicated in Table 2, edr ecologists identified a total of six (6) streams within the Project Area,
including intermittent and perennial channels. Streams within the Project Area are located amongst
agricultural fields, forests, and old-field communities. Most of the delineated streams are perennial or
intermittent, with bedrock or cobble substrate. Stream depths ranged from 1-10 inches, and widths from
0.5-6 feet.
Farm Ponds – A few small farm ponds and recreation ponds are found within the Project Area, generally in
open field settings or adjacent to houses and barns. Typically, these ponds are excavated or diked, with
well-defined banks. Emergent wetland vegetation tends to be limited or lacking. Although not verified,
water depths are expected to be consistent with excavated ponds that are used as a source of water for
livestock as well as for fishing and aesthetic purposes. Such ponds are typically a minimum of 4 feet deep.
12
Wetland C - Wetland C is an intermittent stream located immediately to the south of the on-site scrap yard
(Teet’s). The stream is approximately 2 feet wide with a cobble substrate and at the time of the site visit
there was approximately 3 inches of flowing water observed. The hydrology source appears to be primarily
from runoff associated with the adjacent scrap yard. The scrap yard and a nearby successional old field
comprise the adjacent uplands. Wetland C is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland E - Wetland E is located north of Connecticut Hill Road on the proposed access road to Turbine 3.
This wetland is comprised of several different wetland/stream communities including a perennial stream,
intermittent stream and shallow emergent marsh wetland. The hydrology source to the intermittent stream
is discharge from drain tiles and surface water runoff from adjacent agricultural fields. The width of the
intermittent stream was noted at 6 inches with a cobble substrate and approximately 4 inches of flowing
water at the time of the site visit. The intermittent stream flows into a perennial stream associated with
Wetland E. The perennial stream is approximately 4-6 feet wide with cobble substrate, overhanging
vegetation and had approximately 10 inches of flowing water at the time of the site visit.
The shallow emergent marsh is located at the confluence of the intermittent and perennial streams.
Vegetation in this area consisted of cattails and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). There was
approximately 2 inches of standing water and hydrologic input appears to be from surface water runoff from
the adjacent agricultural fields and from the intermittent and perennial streams. Surrounding uplands
include active agriculture and successional shrubland (hedgerow). Wetland E is likely to be considered
jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland J - Wetland J is comprised of an intermittent stream and shallow emergent marsh wetland
community located adjacent to the proposed access road to Turbines 4. Wetland J enters the site from the
south through an 18-inch culvert underneath an existing access road (proposed access road for the
Project). Hydrologic input appears to be from surface water runoff from adjacent uplands (northern
deciduous forest) and groundwater recharge. Vegetation consists of arrow tearthumb, cattails, and wool
grass. Wetland J is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland K - Wetland K is an intermittent stream located approximately 50 yards to the east of Wetland J
that begins on the northern side of the existing access road. Hydrologic input is from a roadside ditch along
the southern side of the existing access road that then enters an 18-inch culvert under the existing access
road and outfalls into the intermittent stream on the north side. The intermittent stream is approximately 1-
13
foot wide with well-defined banks and a cobble substrate. Surrounding upland is northern deciduous forest.
Wetland K is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland O - Wetland O begins in an active agricultural field, near proposed Turbine 1, as a shallow
emergent marsh and flows northeast into an intermittent stream at a hedgerow that bisects the field. The
stream eventually flows into the northern deciduous forest to the northeast. Hydrologic input appeared to be
primarily from surface water runoff from the surrounding agricultural fields and at the time of the site visit
there was approximately 1 inch of standing water. Surrounding upland is agricultural fields. It is assumed
that Wetland O is likely to be considered jurisdictional by USACE.
Wetland P consists of a forested wetland with braided intermittent streams that drain into a perennial stream
to the south of Turbine 6. The perennial stream channel is a mapped unprotected stream by the NYSDEC.
This stream continues to the southeast within the northern deciduous forest that borders the agricultural field
containing Turbine 6. At the time of the of this survey, there was approximately 1 inch of standing water in
the forested wetland portions of the wetland and 1 to 2 inches of flowing water within the intermittent stream
channels. The perennial stream channel had approximately 3 inches of flowing water.
Wetland Q - Wetland Q consists of both forested and scrub shrub wetlands. This wetland is located along
the eastern side of Black Oak Road. The hydrologic input to this wetland was not observed; however, at the
time of the site visit there were several inches of standing water. Surrounding uplands consist of northern
deciduous forest and maintained road right-of-way. Wetland Q is likely to be considered jurisdictional by
USACE.
Wetland S - Wetland S is comprised of a shallow emergent marsh located south of proposed Turbine 2 on
the southern boundary of an agricultural field. The shallow emergent marsh flows west from the small
marsh along the edge of the agricultural field. Hydrologic input to the shallow marsh is primarily from
forested wetlands to the south of the agricultural field and surface water runoff from surrounding agricultural
fields. The forested wetlands to the south of the agricultural field were beyond the Project Site. Wetland S
is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Wetlands and streams were avoided to the extent practicable during turbine siting, which was an iterative,
multi-phased process. Desktop review and reconnaissance-level surveys were used to develop a
preliminary turbine layout that avoided large wetlands and mapped streams. In the summer of 2011, edr
14
ecologists began field review of an updated Project layout. By identifying small unmapped wetlands and
streams in the vicinity of project components, the efforts associated with this Wetland Inventory Report
allowed for further layout adjustments to reduce impacts to wetlands and streams.
A total of eight (8) wetlands and streams within approximately 100 feet of Project components were
identified by edr ecologists. These wetlands were identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The identified areas include emergent wetlands and
streams (intermittent and perennial). The primary functions provided by these wetlands appear to include
maintaining surface water flows, recharging groundwater supplies, storm water retention, flood protection
and abatement, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, and nutrient production and cycling. Many of the
delineated wetlands are portions of larger systems, which may provide significant functions and values.
Should a permit application be required, additional field work would be conducted to hang wetland flagging
along the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands and collect further data (including soils data). The Joint
Application for Permit would thoroughly describe the characteristics of each delineated wetland to be
impacted, including its specific functions and values. However, for the purposes of SEQRA, this Wetland
Inventory Report provides all the information necessary to identify and describe the existing wetland and
stream resources within the Project area, and subsequently quantify anticipated impacts and discuss
proposed mitigation measures.
15
6.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet and E.T. LaRoae. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Waterways Experiment Station; Vicksburg, MS.
Lichvar, R.W. and J.T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, Version
2.4.0, New York State. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Available at:
https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil (Accessed January 3, 2013).
NRCS. 2012a. New York Portion of the 2012 National Hydric Soil List. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/
use/hydric/ (Accessed January 3, 2013). Last updated April 2012.
NRCS. 2012b. Temperature and Precipitation Summary (TAPS) for Ithaca – Cornell University, 1971-2000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Water and Climate Center. Available at:
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/climate/taps/ny/36109.txt (Accessed January 3, 2013).
Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region. ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1965. Soil Survey of Tompkins County, New York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Interagency Memorandum from Gary S.
Guzy (General Counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Robert M. Anderson (Chief
Counsel for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Memorandum Subject: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning
CWA Jurisdiction over Isolated Waters.
Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2012. New York Flora Atlas. [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (original
application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research, University of South Florida].
New York Flora Association, Albany, New York.
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
UV434
UV88
UV417
UV367
UV49
UV221
UV287
UV21
UV38A UV11A
UV5
UV318
UV427
UV34B
UV352
UV223
UV328
UV392
UV173
UV281
UV858
UV245
UV706
UV4014
UV415
UV467
UV41A
UV549
UV96B
UV226
UV80
UV17C
UV414
UV13
UV224
UV54A
UV50
UV96A
UV41
UV79
UV54
UV187
UV17
UV38UV14
UV14A
UV89
UV31
UV34
UV96 UV90
£¤15
£¤220£¤6
£¤20
£¤11
§¨¦690
§¨¦86
§¨¦481
§¨¦81
§¨¦90
Cortland
Canandaigua Geneva
Corning
Auburn
Elmira
Ithaca
Syracuse
Approxi mateProject Location
BRADFORDCOUNTY
SUSQUEHAN NACOUNTY
TIOGACOUNTY
BROOMECOUNTY
CAY UGACOUNTY
CHEMUNGCOUNTY
CORTLANDCOUNTY
ONONDAGACOUNTY
ONTARIOCOUNTY
SCHUYLERCOUNTY
SENECACOUNTY
STEUBENCOUNTY
TIOGACOUNTY
TOM PKINSCOUNTY
WAYNECOUNTY
YATESCOUNTY
NEW YORKPENNSYLVANIA
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Figure 1: Re gional Project Location
Notes: Basemap: ESRI StreetMap North America, 2008
0 10 205Miles
January 2013
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.ed rco m pa ni es.co m
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Notes: Basemap: USGS Mecklenburg 7.5 minute quadrangle.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
µ
Figure 2: Topographic Mapping
Ja nuary 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
LaC
EbB
LaB
EbB
LaB
MaB
BgC
EbB
EbB
VbC
LaC
LaC
LnD
MfD
MaC3
LnE
BgC
LaB
VbB
LaB
BaD
MaB
BaD
LnE
BgDLaB
EbB
BaC
BaD
LoF
LaB
VbC3
LaC
EbB
EbB
BgC
MaC
BgC
LaC
MaC
LaB
VbB
LaB
EbC
BaC
BgC
MaB
BgC BgC
LaB
LaB
BgC
MaC
VbB
BaC
EcA
BaC3
MaC3
LaB
Mo
VbC
MaC
Ab
Mo
VbB
EcA
LaC3
EbC
MaB
BaC
BgC
BaC
BoE
EcA
BgC
MaB
BaD
BoE
EbC
BgC
VbB
MaC3
BgC
LaB
LaB
LaB BaC
LaB
CnB
EbC
LaB
BgD
LaB
CnB
LaB
BgD
MaB
BaC
VbB
MfD
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
CR 136
Cay
u
t
a
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
Griffin Rd Black Oak Rd Weatherby Rd Tower Rd www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 750 1,500375
Feet
µ
Figure 3: Project Area Soils
January 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Soil Type
Ab - Alluvial Land
BaC - Bath channery silt loam, 5-15% slopes
BaC3 - Bath channery silt loam, 5-15% slopes, eroded
BaD - Bath channery silt loam, 15-25% slopes
BgC - Bath and Valois gravelly silt loam, 5-15% slopes
BgD - Bath and Valois gravelly silt loam, 15-25% slopes
BoE - Bath and Valois gravelly silt loam, 25-35% slopes
CnB - Chenango gravelly loam, fan, 0-8% slopes
EbB - Erie channery silt loam, 3-8% slopes
EbC - Erie channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes
EcA - Ellery, Chippewa, and Alden soils, 0-8% slopes
LaB - Langford channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes
LaC - Langford channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes
LaC3 - Langford channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded
LnD - Lordstown channery silt loam, 15-25% slopes
LnE - Lordstown channery silt loam, 25-35% slopes
LoF - Lordstown soils, 35-70% slopes
MaB - Mardin channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes
MaC - Mardin channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes
MaC3 - Mardin channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded
MfD - Mardin and Langford soils, 15-25% slopes
Mo - Middlebury and Tioga silt loams
VbB - Volusia channery silt loam, 3-8% slopes
VbC - Volusia channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes
VbC3 - Volusia channery silt loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
Class C
C la s s CClass CClass CClass CClass CCla
ss C
Class CClass CClass CClass C
Class C
C la s s C
Class CClass C
Class CClass CC lass C
Cla ss C
Class CClass CClass CCl
ass CClass CCayuta Inlet1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.ed rco m pa ni es.co m
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Notes: Basemap: USGS Mecklenburg 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,00 0 2,000500Feet
µ
Figure 4: Surface Waters
Ja nuary 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NYSDEC Protected Stream s
Unprotected Streams
315166787231516678723151667872
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
PEM1C
PSS1/FO1EPEM1E
PUBHh
PEM1Eb
PEM1E
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PSS1E
PABH
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PFO1E
PEM1EPUBHh
PEM1E
PSS1E
PUBHh
PEM1Eh
PSS1E
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.ed rco m pa ni es.co m
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Notes: Basemap: USGS Mecklenburg 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,00 0 2,000500Feet
µ
Figure 5: National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Ja nuary 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NW I Wetland
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
ME -5
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.ed rco m pa ni es.co m
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Notes: Basemap: USGS Mecklenburg 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
µ
Figure 6: NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Mapping
Ja nuary 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NYSDEC Wetlands
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
Sheet 4
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
Sheet 3
Wet lan d Q
Wet lan d P
Wet lan d O
Wet lan d S Wet lan d E
Wet lan d J
Wet lan d C
Wet lan d K
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
C R 1 3 6
H a rv e y H i l l R d
Cayut av il l e Rd
G r i f f i n R d Black Oak Rd We a th e rb y R d Tower Rd S County Line Rd R um sey H i l l R d Rothermich Rd R o b e r tT r e m anStateParkww w.e d r co m p a n ie s.co m
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
No te s: Ba sem ap : E SRI StreetM ap North Am erica, 2008
0 1,00 0 2,00 0500
Fee t
µ
Figure 7: Wetland Inventory Sheet Index
Ja nuary 2013
!(Met Tow er
&=!Tu rbin es
Bur ied Int erc onn ec t
Acc ess R oad
Sub sta tion
Sta gin g A rea
Proj ec t Are a
She et Ind ex
App rox i ma te We tla nd Bo un d ary
&=!
&=!
Wetland Q
Wetland S
Wetland J
Wetland K
2
4
Weatherby Rd CR 136 Black Oak Rd SCountyLineRdµ0 500 1,000250
Feet
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield,
Tompkins County, New York
Figure 7 Wetland Inventory
Notes:
Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color
orthoimagery, 2007.
www.edrcompanies.com
January 2013
Page 1 of 4
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Approximate Wetland Boundary
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
&=!
&=!&=!
!(
Wetland Q
Wetland P
Wetland J
Wetland C
4
7
Cayutaville Rd Black Oak Rd Griffin Rd Tower Rd µ0 500 1,000250
Feet
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield,
Tompkins County, New York
Figure 7 Wetland Inventory
Notes:
Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color
orthoimagery, 2007.
www.edrcompanies.com
January 2013
Page 2 of 4
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Approximate Wetland Boundary
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
&=!
&=!
Wetland O
Wetland EWetland S
1
3
CR 136 Rumsey Hill Rd
Weatherby Rd
µ0 500 1,000250
Feet
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield,
Tompkins County, New York
Figure 7 Wetland Inventory
Notes:
Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color
orthoimagery, 2007.
www.edrcompanies.com
January 2013
Page 3 of 4
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Approximate Wetland Boundary
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
&=!
&=!
Wetland Q
Wetland P
Wetland E
6
5 CR 136 Griffin Rd Black Oak Rd Rumsey Hill Rd
µ0 500 1,000250
Feet
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield,
Tompkins County, New York
Figure 7 Wetland Inventory
Notes:
Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color
orthoimagery, 2007.
www.edrcompanies.com
January 2013
Page 4 of 4
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Approximate Wetland Boundary
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
APPENDIX B
PHOTOS OF REPRESENTATIVE WETLAND COMMUNITIES
Sheet 1 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 01:
Wetland C
.
Photo 02:
Wetland C
Sheet 2 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 03:
Wetland E
Photo 04:
Wetland E
Sheet 3 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 05:
Wetland O
Photo 06:
Wetland O
Sheet 4 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 07:
Wetland P
Photo 08:
Wetland P
Sheet 5 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 09:
Wetland P
Photo 10:
Wetland J
Sheet 6 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 11:
Wetland J
Photo 12:
Wetland J
Sheet 7 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 13:
Wetland K
Photo 14:
Wetland K
Sheet 8 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 15:
Wetland S
Photo 16:
Wetland S
Sheet 9 of 9
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix B: Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
February 2013
Photo 17:
Wetland S