HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-15_Wetland-Delineation-Report-1.pdf
Wetland Delineation Report
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield
Tompkins County, New York
Prepared for:
Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC
863 Hayts Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Prepared by:
EDR Environmental Services, LLC
274 North Goodman Street
Rochester, New York 14607
P. 585.271.0040
F. 585.271.0042
October 2013
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PERMITS ................................................................................. 2
2.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................................. 2
2.2 NEW YORK STATE FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND PROTECTED STREAMS ....................... 4
3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES ....................................................................... 5
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................... 5
3.2 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.3 FEDERAL AND STATE MAPPED WETLANDS AND STREAMS .................................................. 7
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................... 7
4.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 13
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Area Soils
Table 2. Delineated 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. Routine Wetland Determination Forms
Appendix C. Photos of Representative Wetland Communities
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the request of Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC (the Project Sponsor), EDR Environmental Services, LLC (EDR)
investigated approximately 1,060 acres of leased private land in the Town of Enfield in Tompkins County, New York
(See Appendix A - 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 2013 growing season within
approximately 100 feet of each identified project component (i.e., the anticipated limit of disturbance and hereafter
referred to as the “Study Area”).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to delineate and describe all on-site wetlands and streams that may fall under state or
federal jurisdiction. Specific tasks performed for this study included 1) review of background resource data/mapping,
2) field delineation and flagging of all potential state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and streams, 3) subsequent
instrument survey of on-site delineated wetlands, 4) quantification of the area of on-site jurisdictional wetlands and
streams, and 5) a detailed description of these jurisdictional areas based on hydrology, vegetation, and soils data
collected in the field.
This report describes the results of the on-site wetland delineation conducted by EDR, including a description of the
wetlands and other waters that were identified and their likely jurisdictional status. This document is intended to
provide all of the information necessary to identify on-site jurisdictional areas and support a permit application that
may, if necessary, be submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) or other impact evaluations conducted in support of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
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
2
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, NYSDEC 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 Brian Schwabenbauer and Michael Martin performed on-site wetland delineations.
Mr. Schwabenbauer is a Senior Ecological Resource Specialist with over 10 years of experience in the environmental
field. He received a Masters of Professional Studies degree in Environmental Policy from the State University of New
York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Studies
from Hobart College. His professional expertise includes wetland delineation, wetland permitting, wetland mitigation
design and monitoring, global positioning system survey and mapping, geographic information system data analysis,
and environmental compliance monitoring during construction. He is a NYS Qualified Inspector for erosion and
sediment control and an IWEER Certified Wetland Delineator.
Mr. Martin is an Environmental Analyst with 6 years of experience in the environmental field. He received his
Bachelor’s and Master of Natural Resources-Analysis and Assessment degrees from North Carolina State University.
His professional experience includes ecological surveys, wildlife and endangered species management, wetland
delineations, and geographic information system data analysis. Prior to relocating to New York, Mr. Martin served on
the Board of Directors for the North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals and the Research Triangle
Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis.
2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND PERMITS
2.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
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
3
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:
• 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.
4
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.
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,
5
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 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).
6
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 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
7
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 Project 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
There are no NYSDEC protected streams within the Project Area. All streams within the Project Area are classified
as class C streams (Figure 4).
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.
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION
4.1 METHODOLOGY
A preliminary desktop analysis of the Project Area was conducted prior to EDR performing on-site wetland
delineation. The desktop analysis was performed using NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Mapping, NWI Wetland
Mapping, USGS Topographic Mapping and with the use of aerial photography. From these mapped resources EDR
identified areas likely to contain wetland and stream resources within the Project Area, in order to assist with avoiding
impacts to on-site wetlands for the preliminary siting of Project components.
The entire Study Area was investigated, and all the wetlands were delineated between June 17 and June 19, 2013.
The determination of wetland boundaries was made by EDR personnel according to the three-parameter
methodology described in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (hereafter referred to as the 1987 Manual)
8
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Determination of wetland boundaries was also guided by the Interim Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeastern Region (hereafter
referred to as the Regional Supplement) (USACE, 2009). Attention was also given to the identification of potential
hydrologic connections between wetland areas that could influence their jurisdictional status. Wetland boundaries
were defined in the field with sequentially numbered pink surveyor’s flagging.
Data were collected from one or more sample plots in each delineated wetland (depending on the size and diversity
of ecological communities of the delineated area) on June 17, 18, and 19, 2013, and were recorded on USACE
Routine Wetland Determination forms (Appendix B). Data collected for each of the wetlands delineated by EDR
personnel included dominant vegetation, hydrology indicators, and soil characteristics.
The vegetative data collection process focused on dominant plant species in four categories: trees (>3” diameter at
breast height), saplings/shrubs (<3.0” diameter at breast height and >3.2’ tall), herbs (<3.2’ tall), and woody vines.
Dominance was measured by visually estimating those species having the largest relative basal area (trees),
greatest height (saplings/shrubs), greatest number of stems (woody vines), and greatest percentage of aerial
coverage (herbaceous) by species. Dominant species for each stratum in the plant community were identified for all
wetland delineations on the site. The dominant species from each category are defined as those plants with the
highest ranking which, when cumulatively totaled, exceeds 50 percent of the total dominance measure for that
category, plus any additional plant species comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the
category. The species were rank ordered for each category by decreasing value of percent cover.
Soils data at each sampling location were collected by EDR personnel using a Dutch auger. Information concerning
soil name, drainage classification, texture, matrix and redoximorphic feature color was obtained for each delineated
wetland by reviewing the County Soil Survey and through field sampling. Soil colors were determined using Munsell
Soil Charts (Kollmorgen Corp., 2000). This information was used to determine whether the soils displayed hydric
characteristics. Hydric soils are those that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil layer. Hydric soils are poorly drained, and their presence
is indicative of the likely occurrence of wetlands (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
The Regional Supplement lists the following indicators as evidence of wetland hydrology (in order of decreasing
reliability): (A1) surface water, (A2) high water table, (A3) saturation, (B1) water marks, (B2) sediment deposits, (B3)
drift deposits, (B4) algal mat or crust, (B5) iron deposits, (B7) inundation visible on aerial imagery, (B8) sparsely
vegetated concave surface, (B9) water-stained leaves, (B13) aquatic fauna, (B15) marl deposits, (C1) hydrogen
sulfide odor, (C3) oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, (C4) presence of reduced iron, (C6) recent iron reduction in
9
tilled soils, and (C7) thick muck surface. Hydrologic characteristics (inundation and soil saturation) were visually
assessed to a depth of 12 inches. The hydrology indicators described above are considered "primary indicators,"
and any one of these indicators is sufficient evidence that wetland hydrology is present. In addition, “secondary
indicators” used by edr personnel included: (B6) surface soil cracks, (B10) drainage patterns, (B16) moss trim lines,
(C2) dry-season water table, (C8) crayfish burrows, (C9) saturation visible on aerial imagery, (D1) saturation visible
on aerial imagery, (D2) geomorphic position, (D3) shallow aquitard, (D4) microtopographic relief, and (D5) fac-neutral
test. Any two of these also indicate the presence of wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology, when combined with a
hydrophytic plant community and hydric soils, indicate the presence of a wetland.
Photographs were taken of all wetlands delineated within the Study Area. Photographs representative of the
delineated wetlands are included in Appendix C.
4.2 RESULTS
EDR ecologists identified a total of 11 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
ID1 Community Type Area2 Federal
Jurisdiction3
State
Jurisdiction3
A Intermittent Stream 0.52 Yes No
B Intermittent Stream 0.58 Yes No
C Emergent/Intermittent Stream 0.70 Yes No
D Emergent/Intermittent Stream 0.19 Yes No
E Intermittent Stream 0.02 Yes No
F Emergent/Intermittent Stream 0.02 Yes No
G Emergent 0.09 Yes No
H Scrub Shrub/Emergent 0.18 Yes No
I Emergent/Scrub Shrub 2.17 Yes No
J Scrub Shrub 0.34 Yes No
K Emergent 0.22 Yes No
1Delineated wetlands and streams were identified with a unique letter by EDR personnel during field investigations.
2Area is expressed in acres, and includes on-site portions of wetlands only.
3Based on field observations of hydrologic connections. Final jurisdiction will be determined during an agency field visit.
10
4.2.1 WETLANDS
Scrub-shrub wetland – Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by dense stands of shrub species less than 20 feet
tall. Three wetlands within the Project Area were found to contain scrub-shrub communities.
Emergent wetland – Seven 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 as wet meadow. 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 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. All of the delineated streams were intermittent. Substrates included bed rock, cobble,
gravel, sand, and silt. Stream depths were typically one inch or less, and widths ranged from 1-3 feet.
Wetland A – Wetland A is an intermittent stream located in the agricultural fields north of Rumsey Hill Road. The
stream is approximately 2 feet wide with a substrate of bed rock, gravel, and silt. At the time of the site visit there
was approximately 1-2 inches of flowing water observed. The hydrology source appears to be primarily from runoff
associated with the surrounding agricultural lands. Wetland A is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland B – Wetland B is an intermittent stream located in the agricultural fields north of Rumsey Hill Road and
Wetland A. The stream is approximately 1 foot wide with a substrate of boulder, cobble, and silt. At the time of the
site visit there was approximately 1 inch of flowing water observed. The hydrology source appears to be primarily
from runoff associated with the surrounding agricultural lands. Wetland B is likely to be considered jurisdictional by
the USACE.
Wetland C – Wetland C is located in the northern half of the Project Area and immediately south of a gravel road that
intersects with Black Oak Road. This wetland is comprised of an emergent wetland draining to an intermittent
channel that runs along the gravel road and eventually connects to Wetland D through sheet flow across the road.
11
The hydrology source for Wetland C appears to be primarily surface runoff. The intermittent channel is
approximately 2 feet wide with a substrate of cobble, gravel, and silt. At the time of the site visit there was
approximately 1 inch of flowing water. This channel is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Vegetation in the emergent wetland was dominated by willow (Salix sp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and late goldenrod
(Solidago gigantea). Evidence of wetland hydrology included surface water and sediment deposits. Evidence of
hydric soils included low chroma, silt loam soils (10YR 4/2) with 10YR5/8 redox concentrations. The surrounding
uplands are old fields dominated by timothy grass (Phleum pretense), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) and
red fescue (Festuca rubra) with scattered willow (Salix sp.) and gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa). No evidence of
hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland C is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the
USACE.
Wetland D – Wetland D is located west of Wetland C and south of a gravel road. This wetland consists of an
intermittent stream flowing through an emergent wetland. The hydrology source for Wetland D appears to be
primarily surface runoff. The stream is approximately 1 foot wide with a substrate of silt and clay. At the time of the
site visit there was approximately a half inch of flowing water. This stream is likely to be considered jurisdictional by
the USACE.
The emergent wetland surrounding this stream consists primarily of willow, broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia),
sedges, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), late goldenrod, and spotted jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Indicators
of hydrology included saturation and oxidized rhizospheres on living roots. Low chroma soils (10YR 4/2 and 10YR
3/2) with 10YR5/6 redox concentrations indicated the presence of hydric soils. Species in the adjacent uplands
include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and upland grasses. No
evidence of hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland D is likely to be considered jurisdictional
by the USACE.
Wetland E – Wetland E is located north of Wetland D and the two are connected by a culvert under the adjacent
gravel road. Wetland E is an intermittent stream with a width of 2 – 3 feet. Substrate includes bed rock, cobble,
gravel, sand and silt and the observed depth of flowing water was 1 – 2 inches. The hydrology source appears to be
primarily surface runoff. This stream is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland F – Wetland F is intermittent stream and emergent wetland located across the gravel road north of Wetlands
C and D. The stream is 1 – 2 feet wide with a cobble, gravel, sand and silt substrate. At the time of the site visit,
there was approximately 1 inch of flowing water. The hydrology source for this stream appears to be surface runoff.
12
The emergent wetland surrounding the intermittent stream is dominated by willow, sedges, Joe-Pye weed
(Eutrochium maculatum), manna grass (Glyceria sp.), and late goldenrod. Indicators of hydrology in this wetland
included surface water, saturation and oxidized rhizospheres on living roots. Low chroma soils (10YR 3/2) with 10YR
5/6 redox conentrations indicated the presence of hydric soils. Vegetation on the surrounding roadside included
Canada goldenrod, gray dogwood and honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). No evidence of hydrology or hydric soil was
observed in upland areas. Wetland F is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland G – Wetland G is an emergent wetland located of Black Oak Road north of Teets and Sons Scrap Metal
Recycling. The hydrology source for this wetland appears to be surface runoff. This wetland is dominated by silky
dogwood (Cornus ammomum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), broad-leaved cattail, spotted jewelweed and late
goldenrod. The hydrology indicator observed in this wetland was soil saturation. Low chroma soils (10 YR 4//1) with
10YR 5/6 redox concentrations indicated the presence of hydric soils. The surrounding uplands were old fields
dominated by gray dogwood, Canada goldenrod, and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). No evidence of
hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland G is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the
USACE.
Wetland H – Wetland H is a scrub shrub/emergent wetland located approximately 600 feet west of Wetland G and
Teets and Sons Scrap Metal Recycling. The hydrology source for Wetland H appears to be surface runoff. Wetland
H is dominated by gray dogwood, willow, eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sensitive fern, late goldenrod, and
sedges. Hydrology indicators observed included soil saturation and the FAC-neutral test. Low chroma soils (10YR
4/1) with 10YR 5/8 redox concentrations indicated the presence of hydric soils. The surrounding uplands were
agricultural field dominated by red fescue and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). No evidence of hydrology or
hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland H is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland I – Wetland I is an emergent/scrub shrub wetland located approximately 600 feet east of Black Oak Road
and 700 feet north of Griffin Road. The hydrology source for Wetland I appears to be surface runoff and a small
spring located on the southern end of the wetland. Wetland I is dominated by red osier dogwood (Cornus alba),
green ash, sensitive fern, and wet grasses. Hydrology indicators included soil saturation, water-stained leaves,
drainage patterns, moss trim lines. Low chroma soils (10YR 4/2) with 10YR 5/6 redox concentrations indicated the
presence of hydric soils. The surrounding uplands are northern deciduous forest dominated by shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), honeysuckle, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Canada
goldenrod. No evidence of hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland I is likely to be
considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
13
Wetland J – Wetland J is a scrub shrub wetland located on the east side of Black Oak Road and west of Wetland I.
The hydrology source for Wetland J appears to be surface runoff. Wetland J is dominated by red maple (Acer
rubrum), eastern cottonwood, red oak (Quercus rubra), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and sedges. Hydrology
indicators included saturation, sparsely vegetated concave surface, water-stained leaves, and moss trim lines. Low
chroma soils (10YR 4/2) with 10YR 5/8 redox concentrations indicated the presence of hydric soils. The surrounding
uplands were northern deciduous forest dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black oak (Quercus
velutina), and poison ivy. No evidence of hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland J is likely
to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Wetland K – Wetland K is an emergent wetland located in a pasture approximately 700 feet west of Black Oak Road
and 1,500 feet south of Weatherby Road. The hydrology source for Wetland K appears to be surface runoff.
Wetland K is dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus), sensitive fern and sedges. Hydrology indicators included
surface water and saturation. Dark, low chroma soils (10YR 3/1) indicated the presence of hydric soils. The
surrounding upland is pasture dominated by red clover (Trifolium pretense), timothy grass and red fescue. No
evidence of hydrology or hydric soil was observed in upland areas. Wetland K is likely to be considered jurisdictional
by the USACE.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
EDR delineated 11 wetlands and streams within the Study Area, totaling approximately 5 acres. However, all of
these wetlands continue past EDR’s delineated boundary outside the Study Area, and their size is larger than shown
in Table 2. These wetlands were identified based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. The delineated areas included intermittent stream, emergent, and scrub shrub cover types. The
primary functions provided by these wetlands appear to include storm water detention, ground water recharge, water
quality improvement, and wildlife habitat. The functions of these wetlands are limited due to their small size and lack
of habitat diversity. These wetlands did not display characteristics that suggest they could support listed, threatened
or endangered species. Because these wetlands are on private land, they offer little or no opportunities for public
recreational use, education, or research. All of the wetlands appear to have surface water connections to other
waters of the United States, and therefore all of these wetlands are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the
USACE. None of the delineated wetlands are expected to fall under state jurisdiction pursuant to Article 24 or Article
15 and no NYSDEC-protected streams were delineated with the Project Area. However, final determination of
jurisdictional status must be made by the USACE and NYSDEC.
14
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).
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
BRADFORDCOUNTY
SUSQUEHAN NACOUNTY
TIOGACOUNTY
BROOMECOUNTY
CAYUGACOUNTY
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
August 2013
Project Area
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
7
4
3
5
6
2
1
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Figure 2: Topogra phic Mapping
Notes: Basemap: USGS M ecklenbur g 7.5 minute quadrangle.
0 1,00 0 2,00 0500Fe et
August 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interc onnect
Access Road
SubstationStaging Area
Project Area
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(Black Oak RdCR 136
Tower RdCay
u
t
a
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
Robert TremanState ParkGriffin Rd
Rumsey Hill Rd
Weatherby Rd
7
4
3
5
6
2
1
EbB
EbB
EbB
EbB
BgC
LaB
LaB LaB
LaB Mo
MoLaBBgCBgC BgD
LaB
LaCLaB
BgC
BgC
BoE
BoE
BgC
LaB
BgD
EcA
EcA
BgC
BgC
LaC
BgC
BgC
BgD
BgC
BgC
EcA
LaB
CnB
CnB
LaB
LaB
AbLaC
LaB
EbB
LaB
EbB
LnE
LnE
LoF
LaB
LaB
EbC
EbC BaC
LaC
LaB
EbB
EbC
BaD
BaD
LaC EbB MaC3
LnD
MaB
VbB
EbB
EbB
VbB
MfD
BaC BaC
MaB EcA
MaC MaC VbC3
VbC
MaC
MaC
MaC3
LaB
BaC
MaB
MaB BaC MaB
VbB
VbB
MaC3
MaC3
MaC
MfD
MfD
VbBBaC
BaD
VbB
LaC3 BaD
BaC
EbC
BgC BaC3
VbCMaB VbB
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Figure 3: Project Area Soils
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
September 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access RoadSubstation
Staging AreaProject 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 CClass CClass CC la s s CClass CClass CClass CClass C
C la s s C
Class C
C l a s s C
Class CClass CC lass C
Class C
Class CClass CClass C
C la ss C Class CCayuta Inlet1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Figure 4: Surface Waters
Notes: Basemap: USGS M ecklenbur g 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
September 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NYSDEC Pro tected Strea ms
Unprotected Streams
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
PEM1C
PSS1/FO1EPEM1E
PUBHh
PEM1Eb
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh PSS1E
PABH
PUBHh
PUBHh
PUBHh
PFO1E
PEM1EPUBHh
PEM1E
PUBHh
PEM1Eh 1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Figure 5: Na ti ona l Wetland Inventory Mapping
Notes: Basemap: USGS M ecklenbur g 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
September 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interc onnect
Access Roa d
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NWI Wetland
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
ME -5
1
2
6
5
3
4
7
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Figure 6: NYSD EC Freshwater Wetlands Mapping
Notes: Basemap: USGS M ecklenbur g 7.5 minute quadrangle, rendered black and white.
0 1,00 0 2,00 0500Fe et
September 2013
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
NYSDEC Wetlands
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
87 9
2
4
5 6
3
1
11
13
10
12
Wetland I
Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetl and J
Wetland K
Wetl and D
Wetl and H
Wetl and B
Wetland FWetland E
1
2
6
5
3
7
C R 13 6
G r i ff i n R d Black Oak Rd We ath e rb y Rd
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands Index
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 1,000 2,00 0500Fe et
September 2013
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Acc ess Road
Delineated Wetlands
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Delineated Wetlands Index
&=!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!B64B63B62B61B60
B59B58
B57
B56 B53 B52 B51
B50 B49 B48 B47B65+Wetland B
1
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 1 of 1 3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!A
!A
1U@WET B1W@WET B
B1
B2
B9
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B3
B48 B47 B46 B45
B43 B41
B40
B39 B38
B37 B34
B33
B32
B31 B29 B28 B27 B26
B25
B23B22
B21
B18B17B15
B14
B13
B12
B11
B10
B36+B35+
B20+
B19+
B44 DRAIN TILE
Wetland B
Wetland B
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 2 of 1 3
&=!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!A
!A
1U@WET K
1W@WET K
K9 K8 K7 K5 K4 K3 K2
K1K27K26K24
K23
K22K21
K18 K17 K16K15K14K13
K12 K11 K10K20+
K19+
Wetland K
2
K6
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 3 of 1 3
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!A
!A1U@WET A
1W@WET A
A9A7A6A5
A4
A3A2
A26 A25
A24
A22 A19 A18 A17
A16
A13
A12A11
A10
A1+
A27+
A15+
A14+
Wetland A
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 4 of 1 3
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!A
!A
!A
!A
1U@WET F
1U@WET D
1W@WET F
1W@WET D
E7
E6E4
E3
E2
E1
F5+
F4+
E14
E12
E11
E10
E9+E8+
D9D8 D6
D5 D4 D3 D2
D44D43D42D41D37D36D35D34D33D32D31
D28
D26
D25 D24
D19 D15 D14 D13 D13 D12
D11+
D10+
C45+
C44+
CULV/12" HDPE
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland C
Wetland F
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 5 of 1 3
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!A
!A
!A
!A
1W@WET C
1U@WET F 1U@WET C1W@WET FF8
F6 F3
F1
F5+
F4+
CULV 18" HDPE
D5 D4 D3 D2
D1
C2C1D44D43D42C52C51C50
C49
C48
C47
C46
C43
C42
C41
C40
C39 C38 C37
C36 C35 C34 C33 C32 C31
C45+C44+
Wetland CWetland D
Wetland F
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 6 of 1 3
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!A
1W@WET J
C32 C31 C30 C29 C28 C27C26
C25
C24 C20
C19 C18 C17
C16C15 C14C12C11C10
C23+
C22+
C21+
Wetland C Black Oak Rd www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 7 of 1 3
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!A !A
1U@WET J
1W@WET J
J3J2
J1
J9
J8
J7
J6
J5
J4
J12
J10
C16
C14
Wetland J
Wetla nd C
Black Oak Rd J11/18" CU LV
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 8 of 1 3
&=!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!A
!A1U@WET I
1W@WET I
I99 I98 I97 I96 I95 I94 I93
I92
I91 I90 I89
I81
I80
I79
I102 I113
I112I111I110I109I108I107
I106I105I104
I103
I100
Wetland I
Wetland I
5
I101
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 9 of 1 3
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
I94 I93
I92
I91 I90 I89 I88 I87 I86
I85I84
I83
I82I81
I80
I79
I77
I76
I75I74
I73I72I71
I70
I68 I143
I142
I141
I140
I139
I138
I137
I136
I135
I134
I133
I132 I131
I130 I129 I128 I127 I126
I123I122
I121
I120I118
I117I116
I115I114I113I112I111I110
I125+Wetland I
I69
I119
I124+
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 10 of 13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
I74
I73I72I71
I70
I68
I67I66I65
I64
I63I62
I61
I60
I58I57
I56I55
I158 I157
I156
I155
I154 I153 I152 I151
I150
I149
I148
I146 I145
I144
I143
I142
I141
I159+
I9
I8
I7
I6
I5I4
I3
I2
I54
I53
I52I51I50I49I48
I47
I46
I45
I44I43
I42
I41I40
I39 I38
I37
I36 I35
I34
I33
I32 I31
I30
I29
I28I27I26
I25I24
I23
I22
I21
I20I19
I18I17I16
I15I14
I13
I12
I11 I10
I1/SPR IN G
Wetland I
I69
I59
I147
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 11 of 13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!A !A
1U@WET G
1W@WET G
G9 G8
G5
G4
G3G2G14G12
G11
G10
G1+G15+
Wetland G Black Oak Rd www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 12 of 13
&=!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!A
!A 1U@WET H
1W@WET HH9
H8
H7
H6H5
H3H2H26
H25H24H23
H22
H21
H20 H19
H18 H17
H15H14
H13
H11
H10
H1+H27+
Wetland H
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7A: D elineated Wetlands
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wetland Sample Point
!Wetland Flag
Open End
Delineated Wetlands
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Staging Area
!!!!Project Area
Page 13 of 13
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
&=!
!(
87 9
2
4
5 6
3
1
11
13
10
12
Wetland I
Wetland C
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetl and J
Wetland K
Wetl and D
Wetl and H
Wetl and B
Wetland FWetland E
1
2
6
5
3
7
C R 13 6
G r i ff i n R d Black Oak Rd We ath e rb y Rd
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands Index
Notes: Basemap: ESRI Streetmap North America, 2008.
0 1,000 2,00 0500Fe et
September 2013
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Road
Substation
Staging Area
Delineated Wetl ands Index
Project Area
Delineated Wetl ands
&=!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
Wet land BB64B63B62B61B60
B59B58
B57
B56 B53 B52 B51
B50 B49 B48 B47
1
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 1 of 1 3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!A
!A
1U@WET B1W@WET BWetland B
Wetland B
B1
B2
B9
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B3
B48 B47 B46
B43 B41
B40
B39 B38
B37 B34
B33
B32
B29 B28 B27 B26
B25
B23B22
B21
B18B17B15
B14
B13
B12
B11
B10
B36+B35+
B20+
B19+
B44 DRAIN TILE
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 2 of 1 3
&=!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!A
!A
1U@WET K
1W@WET K
Wet land K
K9 K8 K7 K5 K4 K3 K2
K1K27K26K24
K23
K22
K18 K17 K16K15K14K13
K12 K11 K10K20+
K19+
2
K6
K21
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 3 of 1 3
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!A
!A1U@WET A
1W@WET A
Wetland AA9A7A6A5
A4
A3A2
A26 A25
A24
A22 A19 A18 A17
A16
A13
A12A11
A10
A1+
A27+
A15+
A14+
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 4 of 1 3
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!A
!A
!A
!A
1U@WET F
1U@WET D
1W@WET F
1W@WET D
Wet land D
Wet land E
Wetland C
Wetland F
E7
E6E4
E3
E2
E1
F5+
F4+
E14
E11
E10
E9+E8+
D9D8 D6
D5 D4 D3 D2
D44D43D42D41D37D36D34D33D32D31
D28
D26
D25 D24
D19 D15 D14 D13 D13 D12
D11+
D10+
C45+
C44+
CULV/12" HDPE
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 5 of 1 3
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!A
!A
!A
!A
1W@WET C
1U@WET F 1U@WET C1W@WET F
Wet land CWetland D
Wetland F
F8
F6
F1
F5+
F4+
CULV 18" HDPE
D5 D4
D3 D2
D1
C2C1D44D43D42C52C51C50
C49
C48
C47
C46
C43
C42
C41
C39 C38 C37
C36 C35 C34 C33 C32 C31
C45+C44+
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 6 of 1 3
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!A !A
1W@WET J
Wetland C
C32 C31 C30 C29 C28 C27C26
C25
C24 C20
C19 C18 C17
C16C15 C14C12C11C10
C23+
C22+
C21+Black Oak Rd www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 7 of 1 3
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!A !A
1U@WET J
1W@WET J
Wetland J
Wetland C
J3J2
J1
J9
J8
J7
J6
J5
J4
J12
J10
C16
Black Oak Rd J11/18" CU LV
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 8 of 1 3
&=!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!A
!A1U@WET I
1W@WET I
Wetland I
Wet land I
I99 I98 I97 I96 I95 I94 I93
I92
I91 I90 I89
I81
I80
I79
I102 I113
I112I111I110I109I108I107
I106I105I104
I103
I100
5
I101
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 9 of 1 3
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Wetland I
I94 I93
I92
I91 I90 I89 I88 I87 I86
I85I84
I83
I82I81
I80
I79
I77
I76
I75I74
I73I72I71
I70
I68 I143
I142
I141
I140
I139
I138
I137
I136
I135
I134
I133
I132 I131
I130 I129 I128 I127
I126
I123I122
I121
I120I118
I117I116
I115I114I113I112I111I110
I125+
I69
I119
I124+
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 10 of 13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
Wet land I
I74
I73I72I71
I70
I68
I67I66I65
I64
I63I62
I61
I60
I58I57
I56I55
I158 I157
I156
I155
I154 I153 I152 I151
I150
I149
I148
I146 I145
I144
I143
I142
I141
I159+
I9
I8
I7
I6
I5I4
I3
I2
I54
I53
I52I51I50I49I48
I47
I46
I45
I44I43
I42
I41I40
I39 I38
I37
I36 I35
I34
I33
I32 I31
I30
I29
I28I27I26
I25I24
I23
I22I20I19
I18I17I16
I15I14
I13
I12
I11 I10
I1/SPR IN G
I69
I59
I147
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 11 of 13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!A !A
1U@WET G
1W@WET GWetland G
G9 G8
G5G4
G3G2G14G12
G11G10
G1+G15+Black Oak Rd www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 12 of 13
&=!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!A
!A 1U@WET H
1W@WET HWetland H H9
H8H6H5
H3H2H26
H25H24H23
H22
H20 H19
H18 H17
H15H14
H13
H11
H10
H1+H27+
www.edrcompanies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind Power ProjectTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7B: D elineated Wetlands with A erial Photo
Notes: Basemap: 2-ft resolution natural color orthoimagery, 2007.
0 75 15037.5 Fe et
September 2013
!A Wet land Sample Point
!Wet land Flag
!(Met Tower
&=!Turbines
Buried Interconnect
Access Roa d
Delineated Wetlands
Substation
Staging Area
Project Area
Page 13 of 13
APPENDIX B
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
APPENDIX C
PHOTOS OF REPRESENTATIVE WETLAND COMMUNITIES
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 1 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 01
View of Wetland A - intermittent
stream.
Photo 02
View of Wetland B - intermit-
tent stream.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 2 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 03
View of Wetland C - emer-
gent wetland and intermittent
stream.
Photo 04
View old field uplands at
Wetland C.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 3 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 05
View of Wetland D - emer-
gent wetland and intermittent
stream.
Photo 06
View of uplands at Wetland D.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 4 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 07
View of Wetland E - intermit-
tent stream.
Photo 08
View of Wetland F - emergent
wetland and intermittent chan-
nel.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 5 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 09
View of uplands at Wetland F.
Photo 10
View of Wetland G - emergent
wetland.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 6 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 11
View of uplands at Wetland G.
Photo 12
View of Wetland H - emergent
and scrub shrub wetland.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 7 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 13
View of uplands at Wetland H.
Photo 14
View of Wetland I - emergent
wetland.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 8 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 15
View of Wetland I - scrub shrub
wetland.
Photo 16
View of uplands at Wetland I.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 9 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 17
View of Wetland J - scrub
shrub wetland.
Photo 18
View of uplands at Wetland J.
Black Oak Wind Power Project
Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York
Appendix C: Photo Log
August 2013 Sheet 10 of 10
www.edrcompanies.com
Photo 17
View of Wetland I - emergent
wetland.
Photo 18
View of uplands at Wetland I.