Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IAWWTP Improvement Project Scoping
deb Stearns &Wheler, LLc ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS SUMMARY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO SCOPE OF WORD FOR PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The following is a summary of Stearns & Wheler's and our subconsultant, Chazen Associates, Inc., response to the Town of Ithaca's recommendations for scope reduction and/or modification for preparation of the draft EIS. Attached to this memorandum are the Town of Ithaca's recommendations (three pages), and the one -page summary from Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). In addition, the list of intersections requiring turn and link count data, as well as a map, is attached. The responses summarized below are in the same order as the Town of Ithaca attachment. 1. Reduce Subconsultant's (Chazen Associates) Role in Traffic Analysis (Task 4.7.2). The completion of a majority of the traffic study work by ITCTC in accordance with their attached summary is acceptable. The only concerns are as follows: a. That ITCTC is able to commit the time and resources to complete the initial work for the draft EIS within a 4-month period. b. Determination of who will be responsible for obtaining the data required for turn and link counts at intersections for which the ITCTC currently has no data. Attached is a summary sheet indicating the intersections that the ITCTC currently has turn and link count data and were they do not. In addition, there is a map indicating the location of each of the intersections. The Group of 6 should determine if the missing data exists within any of the existing municipalities (based on past traffic studies). If the data is not available, it must be obtained at these intersections. This work can either by completed by Chazen or by individual municipalities. The only concern with individual municipalities obtaining the data is the timeliness in which it is obtained and submitted to the ITCTC for their use. Chazen costs for preparation of the draft EIS cannot be finalized until the responsibility for obtaining turn count data is determined. 2. Fiscal Impact Analysis (Task 4.7.1). The Town of Ithaca indicated that this element should be deleted from the DEIS scope. Chazen indicated that they would delete the Fiscal Impact Analysis, if requested. However, based on their past experience with similar EIS work, they recommend keeping this element, since they believe it will be asked and require comment during the public review period. This item should be iscuss d further with the Group of 6. 3. Development Potential Analysi (Task 4.2). he Town of Ithaca is suggesting the use of two growth scenarios for the developm nt`potet'al analysis: steady state growth (current growth rate) and a moderate growth increase scenario, and delete the rapid growth scenario from the scope of work. Chazen agrees that this approach makes sense and recommendations that the moderate growth scenario be approximately 2 percent, and will be refined following analysis of the current growth rate. In addition, Chazen will be evaluating the existing growth rate without sewers to allow comparison of growth with and without sewers within the service area. S&W Form 195 (02/00) JA8000\803181 1\Wordproc\Misc\EIS Recommendations Summary.doc Stearns&%eler '/ mpanies / Town of Ithaca, New York Scope Reduction/ Modification Recommendations Town of Ithaca Recommendations Regarding DEIS Scope for Municipal Wastewater Collection System Improvements (March 2, 2001) 1. Traffic Analysis (Task 4.7.2): Reduce Consultant's Role in Traffic Analysis • Simplify scope of traffic analysis. • Rely on data and analysis in NESTS Study to the greatest extent possible. Do not duplicate work already done in NESTS. • Use ITCTC wherever possible to conduct the necessary analysis (subject to confirmation by ITCTC of what they believe they can reasonably do). • Identify specific intersections that are agreed upon by group to be included in traffic study. Many have already been included in NESTS Study. [Notes: most of the information and modeling proposed for the EIS has already been done in NESTS, and it is really a matter of re -calibrating the regional model done for NESTS and maybe adding certain intersections that would be relevant to the EIS analysis of growth inducing impacts. Stated more simply, this analysis could be done by ITCTC (if asked and if they agreed) with minimal additional study elements added. The consultant's description also does not make specific reference to the initial NESTS transit recommendations that were made or to the detailed NESTS Transit Study that is underway, all of which may relate to significant mitigating measures for any growth inducing impacts of the proposed sewer service area extensions.] 2. Fiscal Impact Analysis (Task 4.7.1): Delete this element from the DEIS scope. • This kind of analysis is not appropriate for this regional study or for the generic growth analysis being conducted. • This analysis would have no utility for the municipalities involved in the wastewater system project, except for The Towns of Lansing and Dryden, where the proposed sewer system expansions would be occurring. (It may be of some interest to Lansing and Dryden, in which case they may want to consider paying for this separately.) [Notes: The consultant describes a standard fiscal impact analysis, based on the proportional valuation method, which forecasts whether induced growth in each community will generate school and municipal tax revenues greater or less than the cost of the services that will need to be provided to accommodate the growth. This is not an appropriate issue for the areawide DEIS to be looking at. The 1 growth analysis should be looking at things like how many school age children may be associated with the projected growth and whether the schools have capacity to include this growth, how many vehicle trips may be generated by the projected growth and whether the road system has the capacity to accommodtate that growth, etc. The question of costs is not an appropriate DEIS subject. It is a municipal decision -making tool which is more typically associated with an evaluation of specific development proposals, not for generic growth projections.] 3) Development Potential Analysis (Task 4.2): Use two growth scenarios instead of three. • Use only the steady growth (current growth rate) and moderate growth increase scenarios. Delete the rapid growth increase scenario. It is unrealistic and not necessary for the DEIS growth study. • Clarify that it is the Town's understanding that the consultant will focus the development potential and build -out analysis only on lands in the proposed sewer service expansion areas (i.e., in the Towns of Lansing fd Drydi), not for all r( y , areas in existing ed areas; , , [Notes: T e(revised proposal still calls for the presentation of three development scenarios: 1) steady growth (current growth rates); 2) moderate growth increase; and 3) rapid growth increase. This issue was discussed at previous meetings, where it was indicated that two scenarios (steady and moderate growth increases) would reflect realistic growth projections and would be sufficient, and that the third scenario (rapid growth) would be unrealistic and not be necessary for the EIS analysis. The NESTS Study used this approach (slow growth and moderate growth), and there does not appear to be any reason to take a different approach with this EIS. It appears from examining the cost estimate comparisons provided by the consultants that the two scenario approach might save an additional $10,000 (although they did not specify this approach - they provided figures for the one scenario and three scenario approaches). This should be confirmed with the Chazen Companies.] [Notes: The reference to the build -out analysis (paragraph precedin g Task 4.1) is not clear whether the consultant intends to perform this analysis for all lands in the sewer service area, or just focusing on the areas of proposed sewer service expansion and sewer line extensions. If the former is the case, this is a much larger task than needs to be conducted for this EIS. This certainly is something that should have (and may have) been done for the original studies in conjunction with the construction of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and the original sewer agreements that were established among the existing partners. However, the key to the current Collection System Improvement project appears to be focusiz.,f on the growth inducing impacts, if any, of the proposed service 2 expansion areas (i.e., primarily in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden). One could interpret the wording in the proposed revised EIS scope to mean that a full build - out study of all areas currently served in the Ithaca Area Plant will be included in this analysis. While the EIS analysis certainly requires the establishment of a baseline for comparison purposes, it does not require an extensive study and analysis of the currently served areas, unless there is some aspect of the proposed project that would also affect those areas. The difference in magnitude between the two approaches is substantial in terms of both effort and cost. In addition, a very similar growth study was done in the NESTS project. The information in the NESTS report should be used wherever possible in this EIS]. Ithaca 1 \jkanter\71 \correspondence\wastewaterdeisscope.doc 3 ITCTC Scope of Service and Outstanding Information DRAFT DRAFT ITCTC Role in the Ithaca Area Wastewater Improvement Project The Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has been approached to assist in the traffic portion of the EIS for the intermunicipal wastewater improvement program for the Ithaca urban area. Below is a summary of the services that could be provided by ITCTC staff in this effort. For the traffic portion of the EIS the ITCTC could provide the following services: I. The ITCTC would run the traffic model for the existing and future land uses in the study area. The existing and future roadway impacts can be evaluated by looking at the traffic volumes, vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, and link level of service. The model uses trip rates and socio-economic characteristics of the study area to estimate vehicle trip origins and destinations for the traffic zones. The estimated vehicle trips are then assigned to the highway network. The model parameters are then adjusted in the calibration process so that highway volumes predicted are close to observed base year volumes. After the calibration process the model can be used to predict future travel patterns as a result of proposed land use or highway network changes and their subsequent impacts. Information that would be needed: • Future land uses in the study area - number of employees by business type (i.e. CBD, retail, manufacturing, government, education and other non -retail), number of housing units by type (i.e. townhouse, apartment, single family detached) • Other land use changes happening now or in the near future, such as the mall expansion, the number of employees at the new Tops, Applebees, Home Depot, and etc. • Future road improvements already being implemented or planned for, such as any signal improvements, turning lanes, widening of roads and etc. • Existing traffic counts in the study area where available. II. The ITCTC would perform intersection analysis on key intersections throughout the study area. The intersection analysis would provide a current as well as future level of service for the intersections based on the scenarios under study. Actual turn movement counts would be used to evaluate the current level of service in order to provide a more accurate assessment of intersection operation. The future turn movement counts would be taken from the model output. Information that would be needed: • A list of the key intersections needed to be analyzed • Existing PM peak (4:00-6:OOpm) turn movement counts at the key intersections • The geometry and traffic control at the intersections needing to be analyzed III. The ITCTC would be able to assist the consultant in running different model scenarios depending on staff availability. IV. Software The ITCTC currently uses Tmode12 software for the model. The Highway Capacity Manual Software will be used for the intersection analysis. Currently the ITCTC does not own the software and will need to acquire it before we perform the intersection analysis. The HCS2000 software can be purchased from McTrans at a cost of $500.00. DRAFT DRAFT ITCTC Intersection and Link County Summary and Map of Traffic Count Locations INTERSECTION COUNTS Existing Turn Movement Counts 1) Triphammer Road and Graham Road 2) Triphammer Road and Pyramid/Cayuga Mall Entrance 3) Triphammer Road and North Ramp 4) Triphammer Road and South Ramp 5) Triphammer Road and Hanshaw Road 6) Triphammer Road and Klinewoods Road 7) Triphammer Road and Upland Road 8) Triphammer Road and George Jessup Road/Dearborn Place 9) Triphammer Road and Sisson Place 10) Triphammer Road and Triphammer Mall/Sevanna Park 11) Triphammer Road and Wait Avenue 12) Pleasant Grove Road and Hanshaw Road 13) Pleasant Grove Road and Forest Home Drive 14) Pleasant Grove Road and George Jessup Road/Hasbrouck Apartments 15) Pleasant Grove Road and Hasbrouck Apartments 16) Forest Home Drive and Judd Falls Road 17) Forest Home Drive and Caldwell Road 18) Forest Home Drive and Highway 366 19) Forest Home Drive and Warren Road 20) Forest Home Drive/University Avenue and Thurston Avenue 21) Judd Falls Road and Mcintyre Place 22) Judd Falls Road and Tower Road 23) Judd Falls Road and Highway 366 24) Warren Road and Brown Road 25) Warren Road and Highway 13 26) Warren Road and Hanshaw Road 27) Pine Tree Road and Highway 366 28) Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road 29) Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road 30) Slaterville Road/East State Street and Cornell Street 31) Cornell Street and Mitchell Road 32) Thurston Avenue and Wait Avenue We also have counts for the City of Ithaca from the GEIS for the Southwest Park Land Use Plan INTERSECTIONS WE NEED TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PM PEAK (4:00-6:00) 1) Cayuga Heights Road and North Highway 13 Ramp 2) Cayuga Heights Road and South Highway 13 Ramp 3) Cayuga Heights Road and Highway 34 4) Triphammer Road and Cherry Road 5) Triphammer Road and Asbury Road 6) Triphammer Road and Highway 34/Highway 34B 7) Benson Road and Highway 34B 8) Van Ostrand Road and Highway 34B 9) Highway 34 and Highway 348 10) Hanshaw Road and Cayuga Heights Road 11) Cascadilla Street and North Meadow Street 12) Cascadilla Street and Fulton Street 13) Esty Street and North Meadow Street 14) Esty Street and Fulton Street 15) Dey Street and Highway 13/34 LOCATIONS WE NEED LINK DIRECTIONAL COUNTS PM PEAK (4:00-6:00) 1) Asbury Road between Highway 34 and Triphammer Road 2) Asbury Road between Warren Road and Triphammer Road 3) Benson Road between Highway 34B and Asbury Road 4) Warren Road between Farrell Road and Asbury Road 5) Warren Road between Farrell Road and Cherry Road 6) Warren Road between Cherry Road and Brown Road 7) Cherry Road between Triphammer Road and Warren Road 8) Cayuga Heights Road between Oakcrest Road and Highway 34 9) Stewart Avenue between Hanshaw Road and Thurston Avenue 10) Triphammer Road between Cherry Road and Asbury Road 11) Farrell Road between Warren Road and Asbury Road ACOOISITION OF Presented To: DRYDEN INITIATIVE ADDITIONAL SEWAGE PLANT CAPACITY November 15, 1991 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Joint Owners Prepared by: Town of Dryden George Schlecht, P.E.,L.S. Town Engineer TOWN OF DRYDEN, • DRYDEN, NEW YORK 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 607-844-8619 In the Heart of the Finger Laker Region OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR November 15, 1991 Mr. Phillip L. Cox Chairman Special Joint Subcommittee Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant Third Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Cox: Thank you for the opportunity to present the concept of the "Dryden Initiative" at the meeting of the committee on October 21st. We particularly appreciate the amount of time provided considering the short notice of our request. Acting committee chairperson Shirley Ruffinsperger suggested that we formalize our proposal and submit it in writing to the committee for consideration. Because of the urgency of the matter we have also provided information copies to the elected officials on the governing boards of the three municipalities that own the plant. We believe that this initiative facilitates the acquisition of sewage treatment capacity by those municipalities in critical need of such capacity either because of the Cayuga Heights moratorium or the high cost of "on -site" system construction and replacement. The Town of Dryden, in offering this proposal, is in a unique position of assuming a leadership role as both an original sponsor and owner of the project as well as being a municipality whose citizens recognize the benefits that public sewers bring to the local environment and the economy of the region. Please note that the "Dryden Initiative" is based on the commitment that the sewage treatment. capacity requested for allocation outside of the current Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant planning area will be purchased along the lines of the buy in costs set forth in the January 1990 Stearns & Wheler report attachments D and E as revised in November of 1990. The actual buy in costs would be based on percentages calculated using the "outside" capacity requested by Dryden. We further recognize that the time will come when the "immediate expansion" described in attachment B of the Stearns & Wheler report will also be necessary. Dryden is prepared to participate in the cost of that expansion in proportion to the needs of all owners at that time. We would appreciate the opportunity to further review this proposal with the SJS at the earliest opportunity. Very truly yours, Ja es F. Sc ug cc: Members of S.J.S. Committee Jeannine Kirby, Town of Lansing Supervisor Ted Wixom, Mayor of Lansing Common Council of Ithaca Town Board Ithaca City Controller, D. Cafferillo City Engineer, 'William Gray Town Board Dryden ACOUISITION OF Presented To: DRYDEN INITIATIVE ADDITIONAL SEWAGE PLANT CAPACITY November 15, 1991 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Joint Owners Prepared by: Town of Dryden George Schlecht, P.E.,L.S. Town Engineer Table of Contents Executive Summary History Statement of Objective Discussion of Benefits Town and Village of Lansing Buy In Appendix #1 Appendix #2 Appendix #3 Appendix #4 Exhibit #1 Pg. 1 Pg. 2 Pg. 5 Pg. 6 Pg. 7 Pg. 8 Pg. 9 Pg. 10 Pg. 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Dryden currently owns approximately one percent of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Town of Dryden wishes to expand their treatment capacity by an additional 200,000 gallons per day to service areas within the existing SJS planning area. This additional capacity would be bought in accordance with the terms of the intermunicipal agreement. It is contemplated that 100,000 gallons per day would be bought in 1992 and another 100,000 gallons per day within 5 years. The Town of Dryden also proposes purchasing an additional 200,000 - 400,000 gallons per day of existing excess capacity from either the Town of Ithaca or the City of Ithaca. This additional capacity would be purchased for areas outside the SJS planning area. The various service areas are shown on Exhibit #1 and the projected future flows for a 20 year study period are shown on Table 1. TABLE #1 TOWN OF DRYDEN SUMMARY OF 20 YEAR PROJECTION OF SEWER FLOWS Inside S.J.S. Planning Area as Revised: 1991 2011 Existing Future (GPD) (GPD) Varna 50,000 55,000 Monkey Run 50,000 100-2004,000 Turkey Hill 0 42,000 Southwest 0 63.000 260-360,000 Outside S.J.S. Planning Area as Revised: Southwest 0 37,000 Northwest 0 150-250,000 187-287,000 Additional Capacity Needed: Inside 160,000 to 260,000 GPD Outside 187,000 to 287,000 GPD 1 HISTORY The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility is a 10,000,000 MGD capacity activated sludge plant located in the City of Ithaca. It is owned jointly by the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed in 1987 at a cost of approximately $35,000,000. It was constructed under the provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1972. It was one of the last projects funded under a grants program wherein the federal government typically provided 75% of the funding and the state government 12.5%. Due to the use of innovative technology the state and federal grants actually amounted to approximately 90% of the cost of the project. Without an aggressive unified effort by local, state and federal elected officials, representing each of the owning municipalities, the local community would have lost over $30,000,000. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility includes a septage facility for the treatment of septic tank waste from those areas of Tompkins County that do not have public sewers. The local share of the costs of this facility was provided by Tompkins County. An intermunicipal agreement provides for the allocation of the capital construction cost and operating costs. The agreement includes provisions for the reallocation of capacity amongst the owners. At the outset the capacity acquired by each municipality was as follows: City of Ithaca 5,744,500 gpd Town of Ithaca 4,157,400 gpd Town of Dryden 98.100 apd Total 10,000,000 gpd The original planning area has been enlarged once to include the Monkey Run Sewer District in the Town of Dryden. Appendix #3 includes the background correspondence which led to this adjustment of the planning area. The Facilities Plan included an evaluation of 10 different treatment alternatives and defined the size of the plant through planning area boundary maps and population projections. At start up it was forecast that approximately 80% of the plant capacity would be utilized. 2 Average daily flows for the first 9 months of 1991 are as follows: ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Month Of January 1991 February March April May June July August September Average Dailv (MGD) 7.06 7.06 7.55 8.05 6.87 5.95 6.17 6.24 6.59 This is an overall average of 6.84 million gallons per day. Daily flows in excess of 7.5 mgd are unusual and occur most often after periods of heavy rain or snow melt. This is indicative of extraneous infiltration and inflow which if minimized will result in significant additional plant capacity. The issue of infiltration, inflow and combined sewers was to be investigated and reported to the New York DEC (Letter dated 4/10/90 - Appendix 1). The Town of Ithaca purchased 70% of the spare capacity or 1,400,000 gpd. Through the provisions of the joint agreement spare capacity is to be made available to the needing entity in proportion to the amount of spare capacity purchased. The local cost of the project was approximately $5,000,000 including the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden buy -in for the land value, pre -agreement costs and remaining debt on the old plant. Each municipality's share of the local cost was financed by each municipality and each municipality raises the funds needed through its own budget and not through the Special Joint Subcommittee. The bonds have a 20 year term and the total local cost including interest will result in user charges of over $10,000,000 for the life of the financing. The City includes all of the annual debt payments in the sewer rate whereas the Town of Ithaca raises the funds partially through sewer rates and partially through benefit assessments due to the extensive amount of undeveloped tax exempt property. The plant is readily expandable on the existing property to 17.5 MGD in 2.5 MGD increments without renovation of the existing processes. 3 The SJS is currently having discussions with the Village of Lansing and Town of Lansing to consider modifying the service area to include these municipalities as owners. Northeast Sewer Planning Committee is preparing a response to the Stearns & Wheler report which describes the terms of that buy -in. This response is expected to be completed by January 1992. One of the difficulties facing the Northeast Sewer Planning Committee is the lack of existing server infrastructure in the Town of 'Lansing. The combination of the heavy cost to acquire treatment capacity, and expand sewer infrastructure on the heals of a major investment in public water is providing the Lansing Town Board with a major challenge. 4 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES An objective of the Town of Dryden is to provide public water and sewer services in all parts of the Town where extension of such services are feasible. Georae Schlecht. Enaineers and Survevors were retained by the Town of Dryden to help meet that objective. A 20 year projection of flows for portions of the Town of Dryden was done. The results were shown in Table 1. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility presently receives sewage from the Varna Sewer District and the Monkey Run Sewer District. Presently these two districts have combined flows of 100,000 gallons per day, with each district contributing approximately 50 percent. Each of these districts are part of the present intermunicipal agreement. A third district, the Turkey Hill District, is presently proposed by the Town of Dryden. This third district is also part of the present agreement area. A fourth district is currently being studied by the Town of Dryden. This district, to be known as the Southwest Sewer District, is principally located along Snyder Hill Road and N.Y.S. Route 79. A portion of this district is inside the present agreement area of the Intermunicipal Plant and a portion of this district would lie outside the present agreement area. Table #1 shows the total 20 year projection for service areas within the present planning area between 260,000 and 360,000 gallons per day. This means that the Town of Dryden projects a need for an additional 160,000 to 260,000 gallons per day treatment capacity within the next 20 years, for areas within the present planning area of the Intermunicipal Plant. Areas not in the original planning area of the Intermunicipal Plant are also likely to be serviced with sewer within the next 20 years. Referring to Table #1 this includes the Northwest Dryden area estimated at 150,000 to 250,000 gallons per day. It also includes a portion of the Southwest area estimated at 37,000 gallons per day. The various areas so described are all shown on the map included as Exhibit #1. 5 DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS The Town of Dryden believes that providing public sewer services to the greatest numbers of its citizens is in the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Dryden and .in the best interest of our neighboring communities. One mutual benefit is the elimination of the multiple sources of ground water pollution which on site septic systems represent. The areas of Dryden affected by this initiative are principally in either the Fall Creek, or the Six Mile Creek drainage basins. Both of these creeks are major sources of water for Cornell and for the City of Ithaca. The increased participation by the Town of Dryden will also result in less cost to both the Town and the City of Ithaca for their share of the necessary upgrade to jointly owner facilities and infrastructure. The Health Department has served notice that the Kline Road Sewer and the Fall Creek Siphon must be repaired and upgraded in a timely fashion (Letter dated January 30, 1991, Tompkins County Department of Health - Appendix 2). The Town of Dryden also believes that this initiative provides a benefit to all communities by encouraging the management of growth in a responsible manner. A recurring theme, consistently expressed by residents of the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Dryden, and, in fact, the county at large, is the desire to see the rural nature of the County preserved. The alternative is on -site septic systems and wells, which causes an inordinate pressure to build on larger, cheaper, "rural" lots along existing roads, away from the population centers. One result is an unnecessary increase of traffic, and another is the sense of losing "rural" land to suburbinazation. 2 TOWN AND VILLAGE OF LANSING BUY IN An examination of Exhibit #1 shows that in the northwest portion of Dryden a small area inside the Village and Town of Lansing has been included in the proposed service area. It is anticipated that this particular area would be serviced as an out of district customer by a new Town of Dryden district. Based on current water usage the expected flows would be 45;000 gallons per day from the Village of Lansing and approximately 80,000 gallons per day from the Town of Lansing. Those flows are currently being treated in the Cayuga Heights treatment plant. The Town of Dryden believes this initiative enhances the ability of the Village of Lansing and the Town of Lansing to make a commitment to the long term buy -in of capacity at the Intermunicipal Plant. The Town of Dryden also believes that the long term buy -in by the Village and Town of Lansing is in the mutual interest of all present owners for many of the reasons already given. Extensive discussion by the participants of the Northeast Sewer Planning Committee over the past year have revealed the difficulty in achieving a commitment toward the buy in at the SJS Plant primarily due to the lack of sewer infrastructure. This proposal facilitates the planning for that infrastructure by defining the Cayuga Heights moratorium. Allowing the Town of Dryden'to service the Lansing area is a benefit to the Town of Dryden because it generates an immediate usage base and income for Dryden which otherwise might not be expected for 5 to 10 years. The eventual buy in commitment by Lansing is likely to release the outside user capacity to Dryden in a time frame that will coordinate with Dryden's projected needs. 7 Appendix #1 Letter from DEC dated April 10, 1990 0 REGION 7, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OFFICE (315) 426-7500 April 10, 1990 Mayor and City Council_ City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: ITHACA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT Dear Mayor and City Council: Attached please find a report form from this Department's recent annual inspection of the above referenced. facility. Mr. Gleason, Mr. Denmark and their staff continue .to do an excellent job in operating and maintaining this facility. This is indicated by the continued compliance of the plant with SPDES permit effluent limits. At the time of the inspection, the following item was noted as requiring attention: 1. The removal of infiltration/inflow should be investigated to address peak plant flows on wet weather days. The current status of the combines sewer system should be investigated' and reported to this Department within sixty days. If there are any questions, please contact this office at 315-426- 7500. Sincerely, SANDRA M. LjZLOVS Sanitary Engineer CC: Mr. Gleason Enc. SML:J Appendix #2 Letter from Health Department dated January 30, 1991 TOMPKINS CO SUZANNE R. STOPEN, R.N:, M.P.S. Public Health Director 1-Ir. Willi?m Gray, P.E. Ithaca City Engineer City lial l 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 141150 Dear Mr. Gray: At (:'-DEPAR January 30, 1991' 0 i. !t ' All 3 14C lt` OF H FALT Environmental Health Division 401 Harris B. Dates Drive Ithaca, New York 14850-1386 607-273-7215 Re: Overloaded Sanitary Servers Our staff has witnessed sewage ovvrflowir,g from a manhole in the Ithaca High School parking lot qff Lake Road near Fall Creek. The problem is relatcKl, apparently,to a bottleneck Linder Fall Creek and an'expanded service area. This sewage overflow must be investigated and eliminated. The overflow is a violation of various sections of the Tompkins County Sanitary Code and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations, acid must be addressed seriously. While being investigated, the impacts -of the overflow must be minimized. Your. staff must 1,.eep a record of the overflow events, isolate the area from the public, and clean up promptly. During the week of November 12, people were obsevved walk:irnq thrryriah sanitary waste. In addition, vie are notifying you and the contributing service areas that. new sprvice.e),tonsions which will carry sewage.to this point will not be aooroved until overflows are eliminated. We are requesting a map front you showing us the I exact area and all sewers flowing to this point. 4 In addition, we recommend that no new service connection permits for this Icontributory area be issued by any municipality. We would appreciate sPeinra an r=1valuati•on from your office by February 28, 14,1, I outl ininrl tJllrlt fire enact problem is, what can be done to correct it, and a timetahle for correction. Vie also r_rndp.rstand two other areas experience periodic overflows of sanitary sno-iage: the 301-1 block of-Sorith Cayuga Street. and downstream of the Con+miinity hospital off Trumansburg Road. We would appreciate your assessment of these areas by February 28. also. I Page 2 If you desire to meet about this issue, please call; otherwise we will expect your report by Fehruary 28. Very truly yours, Jo r M. Andersson, Di- ctor of Environmental Health JMA/llj Cr: Benjamin Nichols, Mayor of Ithaca Lee Flocke, NYSDEC ,James Schug, Dryden (T) Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger, Ithaca (T) Supervisor Dan Walker, Ithaca (T) Engineer Suzanne R. Stopen, Public Health Director Appendix #3 Various correspondence regarding adjustment to Planning Area W11 3rd Street Extension Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 i? .0 ' • 16 1 1 'tea .., a�--��:� ;. - •s � �'s •..�..:' �._ -. _ � .... . ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO: Members of SJS FROM: Noel Desch RE: Monkey Run Sewer District - Town of Dryden DATE: November 10, 1987 (607)272-2655 Pursuant to telephone conversation with Ms. Leland C. Fldcke, Regional Water Pollution Control Engineer with Region 7 DEC, the connection of the Monkey Run Sewer District to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant will not require an amendment to the grant for the Ithaca Plant. In the event the Town of Dryden had sought Federal Funds for the Monkey Run Sewer Project their application to DEC/EPA would have necessitated the inclusion of a revision of the Facilities Plan for the Ithaca Plant. The decision to permit Monkey Run District is owners with technical Health Department. ND/js the connection of districts such as the totally a matter under the control of the review and review by the Tompkins County "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an ' ;•Native Action Program" 3rd Street Extension Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MEMORANDUM TO: All SJS members FROM: Noel Desch, Chairman SJS Committee DATE: October 13, 1987 Re: Letters from Attorneys' and Engineers' concerning wastewater Treatment Plant cc: all SJS members for meeting October 27, 1987 ND/gr (607WO Mfs 273-8381 273-8411 61987 "An Equal Olinorlunity Employer with an Alilrmative Action P16CIt2rh" D DD 3rd Street Extension Athaoa., N.Y. 14850 ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Mahlon R. Perkins, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Dryden 20 West Main Street P.O. Box 27 Dryden, New York 13053 Dear Mahlon: (607)272-2655 CILILI-... 10, 1987 '. Thari-.s for your letter of September 3 on the matter of the Monkey Run sewer District with respect to the Facilities Plan Amendmeant, While Mr. Gresens letter is very helpful, I would suggest that a letter frm DEC confirming the statement with specific references to the grant number for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project (C 361095) would make it totally clear that such grant is not put il-I jeopardy through a local 4....,c o=.L to the Facilities Plan. . Concurrently with the above, the Town of Dryden should move fozward to seek. «tr.L�V=l of the other try governing bodies to the Joint_ Sewer- the first step being a presentation of the total p„ngjlrina ictA.u.L on sewer to the SJS. ' (See Section 12) . A ..V,AALR ndatio would, then go forward to the City .Board of Public Works, City Cmmon Council and the Ithaca Totem Board. Presentations by Dryden before each of these bodies will probably be required. Please let me know when Dryden will be ready to Very truly yours, Noel Desch Chairman, SJS BID/js �tN - 81987 ! � I � 6 A a f ' GF 1THACA MAHLON R. PERKINS MAHLON R. PEKKINS, P C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 20 WEST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 27 DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 September 3, 1987 I'. f Mr. Noel Desch, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 re: Monkey Run Sewer District Dear Noel: TELEPHONE (607) 844-9111 Enclosed are copies of letters from Hunt Engineers with respect to the "Amendment" to the facilities plant for .the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe the letter is self-explanatory but if you -need further documentation, please give me a call. best Regards. Ver truly yours, Mahlon R. Perkins MRP/ab Encls (8/25 & 8/27 Letters) cc: Clinton E. Cotterill, Town Supervisor James R. Gresens, P. E. C HUNT ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS P.C. Ie3 EAST CORNING. ROAD: P.O. BOX 20 CORNING. NEW YORK 14M 6W-Y62.313 7 August 85, 1987 Mr. Clinton Cotterill, Supervisor Town of Dryden 65 E. Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 RE:. Monkey Run Sewer District Dear -.Supervisor Cotterill: ROBERT W. AUNT. P.E. TIMOTHY J. BALDWIN. P.C. CHARLESJ. FRA`7.ISSC. P.r•.. JA%IE.S R. GREMMNS. P.E. JUSEPII A. CONNrl.I_ K.A. A\XE III:i1SH. R.A. HOWER. P.La �d� A 1 1R 1 :u j937 4.SAHLO. N R. 'PERKINS, P.C. Disposal of wastewater for the proposed Monkey Run Sewer District i- planned for the City of Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City of Ithaca is currently constructing improvements to it's Wastewater Plant with the aid of an EPA Federal Grant. The planning area described in the Facility Plan for the City Treatment Plant improvements does not include all portions of the Town's proposed Monkey Run Sewer District. The question has been raised as to whether the Town is reouired to amend the Facility Plan that was prepared for the City of Ithaca improvements. I have researched this question with Mr. Chris White of'the Region 7 NYSDEC office, Mr. Dave Lang of the Central NYSDEC office in Albany and finally with Mr. Lee Flocke of the Region 7 NYSDEC office. In an August 11, 1987 phone conversation with Mr. Flocke, he er.plained to me that NYSDEC has no rules or regulations for an amendment to the existing Facility Plan if no Federal funding is being utilized to construct the project. From an administrative standpoint, NYSDEC has no problems with the proposed District and does not require an an amendment to the Facility Plan. Administrative reviews may be conducted by the Special Joint Subcommittee. Sewer extension technical reviews will be addressed by John Anderson of the Tompkins County Health Department. If Mr. Anderson has any problems he may contact NYSDEC. HATER SYSTEMS 0 WASTEWATER 0 HIGHWAYS o DRAINAGE 0 BUILDINGS • GRANTS • P RIDGES C _`, !;"I-t 1NO 0 SOWD WA' 4� E,,ktiD r1&.AnNJN R Page 2 August 25, 1987 Mr. Clinton Cotterill I am sumbitting a letter to Mr. Flocke requesting written confirmation of our conversation as described. If you have any questions or require any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HUNT NGINET AND ARCHITECTS, P.C. " Ja s R. Gresens, P.E. enc cc: Mahlon Perkins, Town Attorney 9 . HUNT ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS P.C. Its EAST CORNING ROAD/P.O. BOX 20 CORNING. NEW YORK 14830 GM-962.3137 August 28, 1987 Mr. Lee Flocke NYSDEC Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, New York 13088 Re: Monkey Run Sewer District Dryden (T), Tompkins (C) Dear Mr. Flocke: ROBERT W. HUNT. P.R. TIMOTIiY J. BALDWIN. P.F. CHARLC8 J. rR.1 v7.r•.SE. P.R. JAMES R. GRCSENS. P.E. JOSEPH A. CONNrIJ, R.A. ANNE HERSH. R.A. DANIEL C. BOWER. I8.1.A U ITTRV �Z MAHLCN R. PERKINS, P.C. This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation of August 11, 1987. I had called to discuss an administrative concern regarding the Monkey Run Sewer District proposed to be constructed by the Town of Dryden. Disposal -of wastewater for the proposed Monkey Run Sewer District is planned for the City of Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City of Ithaca is currently constructing improvements to its wastewater plant with the aid of•an EPA Construction Grant. The planning area described in the -Facility Plan for the City Treatment Plant improvements does not include all portions of the Town's proposed District. You will find a map enclosed outlining the boundaries of the Facility Plan Planning Area and the boundaries of -the proposed sewer district. -__ The question was raised as -to whether the Town is required to amend the Facility Plan that was prepared for the City of Ithaca improvements. From our phone conversation, I understand that NYSDEC has no rules or regulations for an amendment to the existing Facility Plan if no federal funding is being utilized to construct the project. From an administrative standpoint, .NYSDEC would have no problems with the proposed District and would not require an amendment to the Facility Plan since no _- federal funds are being incorporated. Administrative review may be conducted by the Special Joint Subcommittee and technical review by John Anderson of the Tompkins County ;! Health Department. WATER SYSTEMS e WASTPI ' --:,R 0 HIGHWAYS • DRAINAGE 9 B111LDITiG5 0 GI,'-;'. t 9„ Pp.Ir?GESi v F0;ID 59h.`t£ 9 LAND PLAN NIN' Page 2 August 28, 1987 Mr. Lee Flocke To thoroughly assure the Town of Dryden that my understanding of our conversation is correct, I respectfully request that you confirm for correct? the above interpretation in a letter. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or require any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HUN GINEERS & ARCHITECTS,' P.C. J.-es R. Gresens, P.E. JrrRG/,irg cc: Clinton Cotterill, Town Supervisor Mahlon Perkins, Town Attorney File Appendix #4 Joint Sewer Agreement Amended April 11, 1984 11 JOIN' SEWER AGREJI�M�T City of Ithaca - Town of Ithaca - Town of Dryden December 22, 1981 Amended April 11, 1984 This agreement dated this 22nd day of December, 1981. BETWEEN, the City of Ithaca, a municipal corporation of the County of Tompkins and State of New York, and The Town of Ithaca, a municipal corporation of the County of TomVyins and State of New York, and The Town of Dryden, a municipal corporation of the County of Tompkins and State of New York, WITNESSE,TH : IN`i`RODUCTION WHFREAS, the City of Ithaca has for the past several years provided sewerage service for portions of the Town of Ithaca and Dryden on a contract ha sis, providing for the conveyance of sewage through its sewers and the treatment and disposal of the sewage at its existing wastewater treatment plant, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca treatment facilities are no longer adequate to mx-,et the effluent quality requirements of the New York -2- State Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the plant have adequate capacity to meet future requirements of the municipalities; and ' WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have ordered the facilities be improved and are considering providing grant funds to assist in carrying out the necessary improvements, and WHEREAS, benefits include improverent of the enviropment of not 1 only the service area but the preservation of Cayuga Lake and the streams of Tompkins County, and WHEREAS, the respective legislative bodies of said municipalities have determined it to be the best interests of their respective municipalities to construct, own and operate a single wastewater treatment and disposal facility, and WHEREAS, the above mentioned municipal corporations respectively and severally desire to provide for the construction, maintenance and operation of a joint waastewater treatment and disposal facility set forth in the foregoing reports, NCIA1, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and --the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and pursuant to Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: Section 1. Scope c The parties hereto agree to jointly construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility as defined in the Wastewater Facilities Plan to meet the needs of the municipalities in the designated service area. (Appendi:x III - Map) and to provide for the operation and maintenance thereof, of the type specified and under -3- Revised 4/11/84 the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, and as set forth in the Sewer Use Ordinance. That the participating municipalities are not unmindful of and do acknowledge the interest of certain other entities which have a special interest in this Agreement and the project herein considered, as follows: (1) The County of Tompkins has requested that consideration be given to include facilities in the project to provide for the receipt, treatment, and disposal of septage produced within the County. The STEP I Facilities Plan included such facilities and the STEP II Design includes the septage facility. The participating municipalities intend to enter into a separate joint agreement with the County of Tompkins to construct, operate and maintain this service; (2) Under the present rules of the U.S. Enviror=ntal Protection Agency, wastewater from certain industries within the service area of this Agreement may require special permits. The parties intend to adopt the Sewer Use ordinance and implement the Industrial Pretreatment Program set forth in the adopted Pretreatment Report prepared under Federal Project No. C-36-1095-01-2 in June 1983, and hereinbefore approved by the parties in May 1983. (3) All parties agree that no other public wastewater collection and treatment system shall be activated by any member municipality to serve the service area until the -bond issues for the- project have been paid --in full; without the consent of all parties. Section 2. Duration The terms of this Agreement shall be for a period equal to the terms of the Serial Bonds which are to be issued in connection with the financing of this Project, unless otherwise modified and amended by the parties to the Agreement. This Agreement shall be renewed by the parties upon such terms and conditions as they may agree upon. This Agreement, as it may have been modified from time to time shall be renewed by the parties on such terms as they may agree upon. However, this Agreement with all amendrnnts in effect, shall be automatically renewed upon the same terms and conditions then in effect for such period, unless one of the parties elects to terminate its participation as hereinafter provided. If any of the parties wishes to terminate its participation in the Agreement and Project, at the expiration of the original term, as provided above, it mist give written notice to the other parties at least four (4) years prior to the e>qDiration of such original term, which notice shall contain the reason for such termination. In the event that the election to terminate is exercised as above provided, the assets of the joint operation shall be disposed of by agreerent of the parties hereto upon agreed valuation on the basis of ownership interests as herein provided. Section 3. Title to Property Title to all real property and improvements thereon, including the wastewater treatment plant site location and the rights -of -way to jointly owned sewer lines and other facilities shall vest in the parties hereto as tenants in common in the proportions outlined in Appendix I. _ Section 4. Right-of-way and Tax Exemption It is specifically agreed during the duration of this contract that the real property and improvements, including any intesmunicipal interceptor, trunk line or lines, located within each nemicipality shall be entirely exeiirpt from real property taxation by said municipality and each municipality agrees to said exemption, and each na-uiicipal.ily will adopt a Tax Exemption P.esolution provided un(R!r Section 406 of the P,eal Properly Tax Law. ISection 5. '! -pe of Truatnient P1nnL- a;:d Improv(mvnts -5- The design, type, size, and specification of the treatment plant, including site development, trunk lines, improvements and other equipment shall be as recommended by the Consulting Engineers, subject to the approval by the respective governing bodies of the municipalities, and further subject to the approval by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 6. The Facilities Plan The pa -ties hereto do hereby substantially accept the STEP I Facilities Plan prepared by Consulting Engineers Stearns & Wheler as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and do agree that the fees paid to the Consulting Engineers and others (as a part of the STEP I facilities planning) shall be included in the capital costs of the project as herein mentioned. The cost of the STEP I Sewer System Evaluation Survey is covered in a separate agreement. The parties hereto do agree to proceed with the STEP II Design and do jointly agree that the Consulting Engineering firm of Stearns and Wheler is designated to carry out the work and that the legitimate costs of said work shall be included in the capital costs of the project. Section 7. Capital Costs It is mutually agreed bets-,een the parties that capital costs for the wastewater .treatment facility and other jointly owned facilities as hereinafter set forth, shall be allocated, borne and paid by the respective municipalities as set forth in Appendix I of this Agreement. An Interim IntE-rmuni.:.ipal. Agreement has bean executed by and botzaeen the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca .and the Town of Dryden r. 'z:ling to the financing of the SMI II Design, Project -6- Revised 4/11/84 ttC=36-1095-02. Said Agreement is attached as Appendix IV, and is made a part of this Agreement. Capital costs shall include all of the following: (a) Planning fees and costs. (b) Professional Engineering fees. (c) Cost of rights -of -way acquisition for jointly awned sewers. (d) Cost of land acquisition for plant site and other joint facilities. (e) Construction costs of the wastewater treatment and disposal facility including site preparation, demolition, and existing facility deactivation of all eligible reimburseable items. (f) Remaining debt on original plant equipment and facilities owned by the City of Ithaca whether or not included in the new joint facility as listed in Appendix I. (g) Measuring meters for determining operational cost allocation hereinafter set forth. (h) Attorney and legal fees, administrative expenses. (i) Such other expenses ordinarily connected with the construction and establishrmnt of a joint wastewater treatment facility but specifically occluding the respective laterals and internal sewer systems of the participating municipalities. (j) Financing and interest costs. (k) Cost of equipment required to implenx-nt the Industrial Pretreatment Prcaram. Section B. Pre Agreement Costs The City of Ithaca shall receive, a credit ad]ustrnErlt towards its share of capital cost:; for the land and rights -of -way which it has acquired and naw om s, and for the buildings thereon, (including equips-ent- ar-d apparatus) which are to be transferred from the so present facilities now owned and operated by the City of Ithaca, to the project and the facilities which are to be jointly owned under this Agreement. 0 The parties have ageed that the amount of the credit adjustment for land, buildings, equipment, and apparatus shall be in the amounts set forth in Item 4 under the heading, "Anticipated Local. Capital Costs" of Appendix I. The parties have further agreed, that in addition to the aforementioned credit to the City for its contribution of land, equipment, buildings and apparatus toward the project, further credit will be allowed to the City for expenses that it incurred for the Plan of Study, the maxinmxn Efficiency Evaluation for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Report, and STEP I work (exclusive of SSES which is covered by a separate agreement) which has not otherwise been shared in by the other participating municipalities. The Town of .Ithaca has provided a recording secretary and shall receive credit for such costs in support of the Sewer Service Planning Committee. Section 9. Financing - Capital Costs Each respective participating municipality shall be responsible for financing its respective share of the Capital Costs. The participating municipalities may jointly or individually apply for Federal or State grants for all or a portion of their share of the project cost, whichever may be most advantageous to said mtunicipality. That said respectiS10 amounts shall be provided by each respective municipality or such portion thereof as may be needed during constnmction upon warrants issu�xl therefor by the Project Fiscal officer hereinafter designated and cr3rged with the expenditure of funds for the project under terinn of this Agreement. -8- Revised 4/11/84 That it is mutually agreed that the Chief Fiscal officer of the City of Ithaca or his Deputy be and he hereby is designated Fiscal Officer for this Project for the parties for the purpose of receiving and paying out funds pursuant to this Agreement upon his filing with the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, in addition to his official bond filed with the City of Ithaca, a bond in the penal sum of $300,000 in favor of the participating municipalities, conditioned upon his faithful performance and discharge of the trust imposed upon him. The Fiscal Officer shall deposit all moneys received from the respective iciunicipalities in separate accounts in one or more banks or trust companies authorized by law to receive deposits of funds on behalf of the respective municipalities. No expenditures shall be mace rrom saia special account or accounts except after an audit according to normal auditing and payrrent procedures of the participating municipalities and in accordance with provisions of Section 119-0 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York. Operation The parties agree that the City of Ithaca through its Department of Public Works shall operate and maintain the proposed plant in a manner consistent with parameters defined in the SPDFS Permit. Matters pertaining to the selection, appointment, direction and aclninistration -of - employees or personnel matters;"' collective " bargaining or labor negotiations are the sole prerogative of the City of Ithaca and appropriate e}pe._nses relating to sane are to be covered under "Section 10 - Operation Expenses" which follows. All the parties to this Agreement shall be nm—.-d as permitees on the SPDES Permit for the Ithaca Area Wastewater 'Treatment Plant. Section 10 - Operating F,xpenses operation arr0 maintenance costs shall include operating costs for managing, repairing and ntizintaining all jointly used facilities and equipment, including the treatirent plant and that portion of -9- Revised 4/11/84 intermunicipal sewers jointly used, insurance, salaries, legal, engineering, bookkeeping and auditing and required overhead on personnel, social security, health insurance, utility costs, fuel, supplies, parts, materials, and all incidental expenses for operation, managing, inspection, maintenance, repair, SPDES Permit fees and costs of monitoring Cayuga ILake required by the conditions of the plant construction grant and the SPDES Permit and the operating costs of the Industrial Pretreatment Program. The parties agree that the operating expenses for the operation of the joint facility, including the operating costs of the Pretreatment Program shall be apportioned as described in Appendix II and as projected by the annual budget. The flaw shall be measured in so far as feasible by means of meters on the trunk lines from the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden as provided in the approved STEP I Facilities Plan. The measurement of strength of the sewage, if and when required, shall be determined by accepted engineering standards. The formula, frequency of sampling and means of measuring the strength of the sewage shall be as agreed upon by the governing bodies of the participating municipalities. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall collect operating charges by means of an annual prospective budget and assessing each individual participating minicipality on the ratio as hereinabove provided and under the formula thereafter promulgated. Nothing herein shall prevent the respective participating municipalities from raising, in addition to said operating assessment, such amount:; in addition thereto sufficient to amortize their r-espect.;- •. capital costs or to assess a surcharge to pay for the naintim.ance of their individual systems. -10- In the event a pkirticipating municipality shall fail to pay its respective assessment for operating costs, or any installment thereof whe:. due, the other municipalities shall have the right to compel payment of samunder provisions of law. The annual budget of the Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) shall include an item for contingencies. If during any year that the assessment shall be insufficient to defray the operating costs during said year, the Chief Fiscal Officer shall recommend an amended budget and assessment which shall be reviewed, adopted and paid in the same manner as the yearly assessment. Section 11. Responsibility for Damages and Claims In the event any liability is asserted against any of the parties hereto arising out of the construction, operation, or maintenance of this joint project, the parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the defense and payment of any such claims. The liability shall be apportioned among the municipalities in proportion to the interests of each party in the project or in accordance with such other methods as the parties may agree. Insurance against any such possible liability for protection and benefit of the project and each separate municipality and the premiums for any such insurance coverage shall be an obligation chargeable against the project and the costs thereof to be apportioned during tine construction period in accordance with the debt allocations, and, thereafter, to be included in the cost of the operation and maintenance of the project and included in the budget assessed against each municipality each year in the manner set forth in Appendix II. Section 37. Outside Users The sewngc, treatment facilities provided for in this contract shall be limited to the clefiin(-d service area (see Appendix III) . No extensio,i of the facilities hereby created shall be penAtted -11- outside the service area of the parties hereto without the consent of the governing bodies of the parties hereto. Such joint consent of the governing bodies of the parties hereto shall be by a majority vote of the voting strength of the respective governing bodies. Section 13. Special. Joint Subccrmmtittee Oversight of the joint 6JPCF' operation will be by a subcommittee (SJS) of the Board of Public Works. The SJS will have eight members. Representing the City will be three members of the Board of Public Works and the liaison from the Common Council to the Board of Public Works. Representing the Towns will be four members of their choice, one of whom must be an elected official from the governing bodies. The SJS will elect its own chairman and shall establish scheduled meeting dates to provide for timely referrals to the Board of Public Works. The charge of the SJS shall be to oversee operations of the WPCF, including budget. Matters will be brought before the Board of. Public Works with the majority (5 votes for) recommendation of the SJS. Matters so referred to the Board of Public Works shall be .acted on within 30__days. Those reccm-endations that are accepted by the Board of Public Works shall then be implemented accordingly. Those recommendations that are either rejected by the Bi-11, or not acted upon within 30 days, or that reach an impasse in the SJS shall then be referred to the Chief Fiscal Officer who shall convene a meeting of the MDyor, Superintendent of Public Works, the Town of Ithaca Supervisor, and the Town of Dryden Supervisor who shall atterrrpt to resolve the matter. The matter shall be so resolved by a unanimous agreement of there officials. Where there is not r-nanimity, the matter shall be referred to the municipalities for resolution. -12- Revised 4/11/84 Budget estimates for the joint WPCF operation will be submitted by the Superintendent of Public Vlorks to the SJS by July 1, preceding each fiscal year. By September 1, the SJS will submit a recommended budget to the Board of Public Works. One metnber of the SJS or another person so designated by the SJS shall serve as Secretary for the purpose of providing meeting notices, recording and distributing minutes of the meetings, and other administrative duties. Each member shall have the right to present agenda items for discussion and arbitration. The SJS shall have the following authority, pu.aer and duties: (1) Establish the administrative procedures for administration of the Agreement and for the billing of charges to the municipalities. (2) Discuss and audit the billings prior to submission for payment. (3) Discuss and negotiate any matters of mutual interest in relation to the ownership Agreement. (4) From time to time, make recommendations to the municipalities regarding the Agreement. (5) Administer the Reserve Capacity set -aside. - (6) Negotiate equitable -charges for --services rendered -to each other or jointly. (7) Review applications for new service connections as appropriate to assure accanplishment of the primary objectives of the Pretreatment Program. (8) Monitor master flcx: meters. (9) Arrange for the enforcement of Sewer Use Laws and Regulations and the Pretreatment Program. (a) It shall. be the responsibility of the SJS to review the effectiveness of the Sewer Use Law and Regulations and the Pretreatment Program and Li�ir enforcerent by the duly authorized -13-_ Revised 4/11/84 municipal officials. It shall report periodically on the foregoing matters to the City's Board of Public Works and to the respective Town Boards of the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden and shall furnish such information and data as may be required by the Board of Public Works or the Town Boards. (b) The City and the Towns have the primary responsibility for monitoring industrial wastes -rater and enforcing applicable laws and regulations within the jurisdiction of each such municipality, within their respective areas. In order to provide an orderly, effective monitoring and enforcement program, the City's Sewer Superintendent of the Joint Sewer Treatment Plant Facility or his duly authorized representative shall have the authority (l) to sample and monitor industrial discharge throughout the sewer service area in collaboration with the City Superintendent of Public Works (in those cases where the discharge into the sewer collector system originates in the City) and the municipal engineer of the respective Toms where such discharge originates; and (2) to enforce the Sep-.er Use Law and the Pretreatment Program and regulations in collaboration with the municipal officials as provided ui the preceding subparagraph (1). (c) The status of all violations shall be irr:ediately reported to the SJS, which shall promptly reconTi-end whatever further action may be recluured to correct or stop any violation, to the Mayor or the Ta-m Supervisor of the Imm.i-cipality in which the violation occurred. -14- Revised 4/11/84 If legal action is required, the matter shall be prm ptly referred to the attorney of the municipality in which the violation occurred, or to such other attorney duly authorized to take such action. The municipal attorney concerned shall have the authority to initiate proceedings when immediate action is required. (10) Submit periodic and annual reports to the municipalities. (11) Notify the governing bodies in relation to any claims, demands, disputes, differences, controversies and mistunderstandings which cannot be resolved by arbitration and negotiation. (12) Negotiate an agreement with Tompkins County on the financing of the capital cost of the septage facility and the methods of the recovery of the capital and operating and maintenance costs for same. (13) From time to time hold public hearings as necessary. (14) From time to time review the Operating and Maintenance Manual. (15) It shall adopt, subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the municipalities which are parties to this instrument regulations to implement any of the foregoing powers and duties. Section 14. Approvals Required This Agreement shall be effective upon approval by the governing bodies of each municipality, subject to required provisions of law. Upon approval of this Agrean-)ent, each municipality shall proceed to arrange procedures for financing the construction of this Agrecrnent. It is understood that no bid for constriction shall be advertised and no contract for the construction shall be awarded until all bonding and financing resolutions' have been finally approved and authorized acid all rec,wired procedures have been uomplie i wi t:h. -15- Section 15. Concurrence of Participating Municipalities Unless othenaise provided herein, whenever the agreement of each participating municipality is required under this Agreement, such agreement shall be required to be approved by a majority vote of the voting strength of the respective governing bodies of said municipalities. Section 16. Amendments This Agreement has been entered into on the basis of 12,E local funding. In the event that this local share for the total project as defined in the Wastewater Facility Plan increases substantially, there shall be good cause for renegotiation of financial aspects of this Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement must be amended further to establish procedures either by arbitration procedures and by resort to courts of competent jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes and the resolution of those matters upon which the parties have been unable to agree. It is recognized by the participating municipalities that this agreement may not be ccarplete in every respect and it may be necessary to clarify and amend the Agreement from time to time. This Agreement may be modified or amended by an instrument in writing, duly executed and ackno,o].edged by the duly authorized representatives of each participating municipality., upon approval by n--ijority vote of the voting strength of the respective governing bodies of said participating municipalities. Section 17. Future Expansion of Capacity It shall he the responsibility of the SJS to initiate planning for adri.it.ionr-,] capacity wl:eii the improvements- defined in the STEP II Design reach no more tha 950 of the design capacity. -16- I In Witness Whereof the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers and sealed with their corporate seals the day and the year first aforementioned. Attest: City Clerk City of Ithaca, New York Attest: r- i __X A, - Town Clerk Tam of Ithaca Attest: Town Clerk Town of Dryden City of Ithaca h7ayoJ City of Ithaca, New York Town of Ithaca i Supervisor Tom of Ithaca Town of Dryden Supervisor Town of Dryden REVIEW SEWER SYSTEM PLANNING COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 24, 1980 SUMMARY OF SCHE`IE III SCHEME I - The scheme by which all costs associated with new plant and site would be apportioned by fixed percentages based on growth projections for the respec- tive municipalities for the year 2005 and on load fac- tors for major industry and septage: Fixed percentages would be applicable for the life of the lon.n. SCHT'bIE II - The sch mP by which all costs assac.i.ated with new plant and site would be apportioned by percentages, adjusted. annually based on the most recent: twelve month flow records of contributions from respective municipalities and load factors for major industry and septage. SCHEME III - The scheme by which all costs associated with new plant and site for the hypothetical 1985-No Growth plant would •be apportic--ned by fixed percentages based on the 1984 flow records of contributions from respective munici- palities and load factors for major industry and sep- tage. The reserve capacity of the new plant and pro— portionate share of the site would be apportioned by fixed percentages.based on growth projec= tions for the respective municipalities for the year 2005 and on additional load factors for major industry and septage. At the time the fixed percentage of reserve capacity is reached by any municipality or industry, additional capacity shall be made available as needed from the remaining reserve capacity. Each lmunicipality or industry with remaining reserve capa- city shall provide the needed capacity by a proportion equal to their remaining reserve capacity over the total remaining reserve capacity and be reimbursed for 9/ 24/ 80 -2- same in "dol.lars of that year" by the needy entity. Any reduction of 1984 flow values from any entity while not affecting the fixed percentages paid for the 1985 plL).nt will act as a credit for capacity to that entity and always be used before additional reserve capacity. AN EXM,1PLE OF HOW SCHEME III SVORKS ' ASSUMPTIONS 1. 30 YEAR BONDING PERIOD 2. INTEREST .RATE - 6 0 3. LOCAL LENDING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION - $4,300,000 4. LOCAL LENDING FOR EXISTING PLANT AND LAND. - a. Based on Ediyard 111. Austin. 6/80' Land Appraisals - Parcel III $ 1,500 Parcel IV $206,500 LAND .$2080000 b. Based on Edward W. Austin 6/80 Land Appraisals, American Appraisal 6/79, and Federal Funding - $286,000 x .50'= Parcel III .$143,000 Remaining Debt on Reusable Parts $ 50,000 BUILDINGS $193,000 LAND PLUS BUILDINGS TOTAL $401',000 5. PROJECT LOCAL GRANT TOTAL - $4,701,000 Stearns& Wider 1 L& ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS Report ischa�r e Permit M.,oification. D . g and Plant. Capacity Analysis Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility City of Ithaca, New York May 1994 DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND PLANT CAPACITY ANALYSIS ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Prepared for CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Prepared by STEARNS & WHELER Environmental Engineers and Scientists One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, New York 13035 May 1994 Project No. 2517 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................... . ..... . SECTION 2 - FLOW AND LOAD ANALYSIS .......................... SECTION 3 - UNIT PROCESS EVALUATION .......................... SECTION 4 - OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE ....................... SECTION 5 - CONCLUSIONS ..................................... SECTION 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Influent Loadings 2 Comparison of Design and Actual Loadings 3 Removal Efficiency 4 Operational Parameters, Surface Overflow Rates 5 Sludge Production 6 Digester Performance 7 Listing of Facilities to Ithaca AWWTF 8 Re -Rated Design Capacity 9 Peak Flow Capacity and Proposed Modifications • LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Effluent BOD5 Concentration and % Removal 2 Effluent Suspended Solids Concentration and % Removal -1- Page 1 2 3 7 8 9 DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION AND PLANT CAPACITY ANALYSIS ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (IAWWTP) provides secondary treatment and phosphorus removal to domestic, commercial and industrial flows generated within the City of Ithaca and portions of the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden. Cornell University and Ithaca College are also served by IAWWTP. Current SPDES permit limits established for the plant on a 30-day average basis include: Flow = 10 mgd BOD = 30 mg/1 TSS = 30 mg/1 Total P = 1 mg/1 Additionally, the permit requires that the effluent concentration of BOD and TSS cannot be greater ` than 15 percent of the influent concentration of these parameters. That is, a minimum removal of 85 percent is required. The purpose of this study is to determine if the IAWWTP can be re -rated to be permitted to treat flows greater than 10 mgd. The three approaches to re -rating the plant examined in this study are: 1. Re -rating based on changes in the application of design standards from maximum 30 consecutive day averages (maximum month) to design averages (school year). 2. Re -rating by demonstrating that individual unit processes (and, therefore, the plant) are operating effectively and the plant is meeting permit at loading rates higher than existing standards which are established guidelines. 3. Re -rating by modifying or adding to existing equipment and tankage. Conclusions. The study concludes that: 1. The IAWWTP is not operating at design capacity. Approximately 10 percent of flow, 35 percent of BOD, and 45 percent TSS capacity is presently unused and remains on an annual average basis. 2. Flow, specifically peak flow, is the design parameter of most concern in re -rating the plant. Therefore, the capacity of those units sized on the basis of peak flow will be the most critical to re -rating. Those units include: - Raw wastewater pumps . - Controlled diversion pumps - Primary settling tanks - Final settling tanks - Chlorination/dechlorination equipment - Outfall 3. Evaluation of unit processes and equipment at the plant indicates that the existing raw wastewater pumps and controlled diversion pumps do not have adequate capacity to handle the re -rated plant flow. Costs to modify both sets of pumps for a 30 mgd capacity, are estimated to be $290,000. 4. On the basis of recommended design standards, the existing final settling tanks would be hydraulically overloaded at the re -rated capacity (30 mgd). However, actual operating data has demonstrated the ability of the units to effectively treat peak flows greater than 30 mgd. 5. All sludge treatment and disposal facilities at IAWWTP have excess unused capacity and will not be impacted by re=rating the capacity of the plant. 6. The 1990 edition of Ten -State Standards establishes recommended design standards which are to be applied to "design average" flows and loadings. The IAWWTP was designed in 1984 applying these recommended standards to the estimated maximum 30-day average flow. This result was to .produce a more conservatively designed treatment facility. Applying the recommended standards to design average conditions results in a re -rated plant capacity of 13.1 mgd on a maximum 30-day average basis. Recommendations. 1. Request re -rating the capacity of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant to 13.1 mgd on a 30-day average basis by preparing and submitting a permit application to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. 2. Upon acceptance of the re -rated plant capacity by NYSDEC, complete modifications to raw wastewater pumps and controlled diversion pumps. Summary. The existing Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant is at present underloaded. Approximately 2.0 mgd of existing plant capacity is unused on a maximum monthly basis. Also, based on the findings of this report, the plant should be re -rated to provide an additional 3.0 mgd capacity on a 30-day average basis. The total re -rated capacity of 13 mgd is approximately 5 mgd greater than the current plant maximum 30-day flow of 8.0 mgd. CITY OF ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) was designed in 1984 based on the findings and recommendations of the 1980 Wastewater Facilities Report. This report projected flows and loadings for the treatment plant to the year 2005 and the outfall to the year 2035. The plant was designed in accordance with the 1978 edition of Recommended Standards for Sewage Works (Ten -State Standards). The plant is designed to treat domestic, minor commercial and institutional wastewater flows, and major and non -major industrial wastes from a planning area which includes the City of Ithaca, portions of the Town of Ithaca, and the Varna portion of the Town of Dryden: In addition, the plant was designed to receive septage from Tompkins County. Due to the exceptional performance of the plant and due to influent plant loadings which are below the design values, the plant has been able to accept wastewater treatment plant sludges from outside the service area and leachate from Tompkins County. To assist the Owners of the IAWWTF in their pursuit of a modification of the SPDES Discharge Permit to re -rate the plant's capacity, an evaluation of plant performance and a capacity analysis have been conducted as reported herein. To conduct the plant capacity analysis, the following tasks were performed: 1. Analysis of flows and loadings for the previous three and one-half years. 2. Unit process evaluation for each of the major wastewater and sludge treatment units based on historic performance. 3. Comparison of the basis of design to design standards and actual operating conditions and identification of limiting conditions for major processes and units to determine their capacity. Be 4. Evaluation of overall plant performance, unit process interrelations and " ^ � p p p historic permit compliance to determine overall plant capacity and limiting capacities by unit process. It is anticipated that the information contained in this report will be submitted to the NYSDEC to support the application to revise the permit. Since the time the IAWWTF was designed, the NYSDEC has issued revised recommended standards (1990 edition of Ten -State Standards). The new standards define "Design Average Flow" as "the average of the daily volumes to be received for a continuous 12-month period. However, the design average flow for facilities having critical seasonal high hydraulic loading periods (e.g., recreational areas, campuses, industrial facilities) shall be based on the daily average flow during the seasonal period." The Design Average Flow is based on seasonal flows, where applicable, and for Ithaca would coincide with the school year, i.e., September through May. The original design was based on "Maximum Month Flow" (i.e., highest 30 consecutive day average) which was 25 percent greater than the design (seasonal) average flow. As one of the key design parameters is flow, the impact of this revision in design standards is to increase the rated plant design capacity if based solely -on the standards. SECTION 2 - FLOW AND LOAD ANALYSIS The Datastream computer program was used to collect and summarize plant influent flows and loadings for BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus for 1990 through 1992, as well as a portion of 1993 (through May). The program provides flow information on the basis of peak instantaneous, peak daily, average annual, and maximum month. Using the new definition of design average flow, the current flow and loadings corresponding to this time period (September through May) were also determined. A summary of influent loadings is contained in Table 1 for the past three years, as well as the original plant design loadings for comparison. Table 2 lists the average loadings for 1991 and 1992 compared to the design loadings, as the loadings for these two years were very -consistent and the 1993 data is incomplete in that it does not represent a full year. The data show that the current annual average flow is 90% of the design flow, the BOD loading is 65% of design, TSS is 55% of design, and phosphorus is 65% of design. These results indicate that although the current average flow is close to the original design, the plant is well below its design capacity for all other parameters. Concentrations of BOD, TSS, and phosphorus are well below projected concentrations. The design peak flow of 24.7 mgd, however, has been met or exceeded at various • times. In April 1993, the estimated peak flow reached 36 mgd and though well above the design -2- look= memo J� A� Sam ;ow ammm! aril -AAIr, Flows (MGD) Averaqe Desiqn Avq. Max. Month Peak Dav Inst. Peak 1990 7.19 7.64 7.99 18.42 25.0 1991 6.71 6.91 8.05 12.92 24.5 1992 6.79 6.95 7.89 15.89 23.6 1993 7.68 13.50 20.00 25.0 Design 7.5 - 10.1 - 24.7 (Peak Hour) Flow Peakinq Factors Max. Month/Average Max. Month/Design Averaqe 1990 1.27 1.20 1991 1.20 1.16 1992 1.16 1.13 Design 1.34 - Table 1 Ithaca Area WWTF Influent Loadings BOD5 (lb/day) SS (Ib/day) Total P (lb/dav) Average Design Avq. Max. Month Average Design Avq. Max. Month Averaqe Design Avq. Max. Month 6,997 7,351 6,997 9,268 10,079 20,096 7,483 7,615 7,483 9,185 9,191 11,487 217 230 259 7,229 7,819 7,819 8,637 9,105 10,524 222 236 272 8,141 8,141 7,205 8,580 11,290 - 15,000 16,190 - 21,620 340 - 453 Stearns & Wheler TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ACTUAL LOADINGS ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Original 1991 and 11.992 -Percent of Design Actual Desig_ Flow, mgd Annual Average 7.49 6.75 90 Design Average -- 6.93 Maximum Month 10.07 8.05 Peak 24.7 24.5 BOD, lbs/day Annual Average 11,294 7,356 65 Design Average -- 7,717 Maximum Month 15,130 9,123 TSS, lbs/day Annual Average 16,188 8,911 55 Design Average -- 9,148 Maximum Month 21,615 11,487 Total Phosphorus, lbs/day Annual Average 340 220 65 Design Average --- 233 Maximum Month 453 272 Peaking Factor, Max. Month/Annual Average 1.34 1.18 Flow 1.34 1.23 BOD 1.34 1.24 TSS 1.33 1.21 Total Phosphorus Peaking Factor, Max. Month/Design Average -- 1.15 Flow -- 1.17 BOD -- 1.21 TSS -- 1.14 Total Phosphorus Stearns & Wheler peak, the raw wastewater pumps were able to pump the entire flow by using the standby pump iswithout any flow being diverted around the treatment process. Table 2 also lists the design peaking factors for maximum month to annual average loadings and actual peaking factors. It can be seen that the actual peaking factors are below the projected design peaking factors. This suggests that where maximum monthly loadings for one parameter or another were used as a design basis for various unit processes, the annual average loadings can be increased without exceeding the maximum monthly design loadings. Appendix A contains tables with a monthly summary by year of influent flows and loadings from 1990 until the present. In April 1993, the monthly plant design flow of 10.0 mgd was exceeded as the average flow was 13.5 mgd. Due to the severe nature of the flooding encountered in Ithaca and elsewhere, however, this event is considered an extreme event and not typical of a maximum monthly flow that would be used in sizing plant unit processes. These tables also summarize final effluent characteristics. Appendix A also contains plots of daily average and instantaneous peak flows for the past three and one-half years to illustrate the frequency of peak flow events. • The current flows -and loadings are approximately the same and slightly less for some parameters as the existing (1980) flows and loadings reported in the Wastewater Facilities Report indicating that very little growth has occurred within the service area. Current loadings are well below projections for the plant design year of 2005. Based on these results alone, it appears that the plant can accept increased loadings. Currently, a number of units are kept out of service due to the underloaded condition of the plant. SECTION 3 - UNIT PROCESS EVALUATION To evaluate the performance and capabilities of the various major unit processes and facilities, historical performance was reviewed and the original basis of design for each unit was compared to current loading rates and typical design standards. These results were used to determine the limiting capacity of each process on the basis of performance and/or recommended design standards such as Ten -State Standards. Although the overall plant is underloaded, by operating the plant with units out of service, the actual loading rates for various design parameters in some cases have exceeded the original design loading rates, thereby, illustrating unit process performance • capabilities at or above the design conditions. For example, the plant has routinely been operated 291 • using only two of the four primary settling tanks, two or three of the four aeration tanks, and three of the four final settling tanks. Table 3 summarizes influent and effluent concentrations for BOD, TSS, and total-P, as well as removal efficiencies. Effluent BOD and TSS concentrations are well below -the. permit limit of. 30 mg/l, and removal efficiencies are well above the required 85%. Effluent total-P is well below the permit limit of 1.0 mg/l. A monthly summary of effluent characteristics for the past three and one-half years is contained in Appendix A. Graphical representations of monthly average effluent BOD and TSS concentrations are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively, along with removal efficiencies. Figure 1 shows that the average removal efficiency was slightly below 85% on one occasion for BOD. This occurred during the extreme high flow period in April 1993, when the influent was diluted by infiltration and inflow. The effluent BOD, however, during this period was 13 mg/l, well below the permit limit of 30 mg/I. The data show that the plant consistently produces a high quality effluent even during high flow periods. These results reflect primarily the performance of the activated sludge process consisting of the aeration tanks and final settling tanks. Normally, three of the four aeration tanks • and three of the four final settling tanks are utilized. A limited amount, of primary effluent sampling was conducted, however, the results were inconclusive since recycle streams such as filtrate from sludge dewatering and digester supernatant are returned ahead of the primary settling tanks and after the influent sampling point. The results did show that the removals of BOD and TSS across the primary settling tanks essentially offset the contribution from recycle streams. Normally, two of four primary settling tanks are utilized. During high flow periods, such as Spring 1993, the remaining settling tanks are normally placed into service. Table 4 contains a summary of surface overflow rates (SOR) under various flow conditions (annual average, design average, peak day, and peak hourly) for both primary and final settling tanks. The recommended SOR from Ten -State Standards is also listed for comparison. The primary settling tanks typically operate close to the upper peak limit of 3,000 gpd/ft2, and the final settling tanks have operated above the peak limit of 1,200 gpd/ft2 without adversely affecting performance. To assess the impact of flows on settling tank performance and overall performance, average daily and instantaneous peak flows were plotted against effluent BOD and BOD removal efficiency. These plots are contained in Appendix B. Individual BOD sampling results are plotted against -4- BOD5 (mq/1) Influent Effluent % Removal 1990 117 9.9 91.5% 1991 135 8.7 93.3% 1992 128 9.1 93.0% 1993 140 12.0 90.5% Design/Permit 181 30.00 >85% Table 3 Ithaca Area WWTF Removal Efficiency TSS (mg/1) Influent Effluent % Removal 152 4.5 96.9% 166 4.6 97.0% 153 4.1 97.3% 124 5.4 94.7% 258 30 >85% Total P (mg/1) Influent Effluent % Removal 4.1 0.7 83.8% 3.9 0.6 84.8% 5.4 100.% - Stearns & Wheler arearns tic Wheler Figure 1 Ithaca Area WWTF Effluent BOD5 Concentration and % Removal 100.% --———————————————————————————————— — — — ——z 80.% ..X 1992 70.% 1993 60.% 50.% a O E 40.% c O 30.% LO 20.0 a 13 20.% O • 00 / / �. •/ w 0.0 °' m m a ma ma a°'mam 0 a) o D D o 0 0 0- g aai ° 0-0 -�U-:E< Qcn0u-QQUn0zQQUn0zU-2Q� Effluent BOD5 — - — 30 mg/I Effluent Limit —■— % Effluent BOD5 Removal — — — 85% Minimum BOD5 Removal Stearns & Wheler 30.0 �o .0 20.0 c m u, E 10.0 c m 0.0 w ..M Figure 2 Ithaca Area WWTF Effluent Suspended Solids Concentration and % Removal 1991 1992 1993 100.% 90.% 80.% 70.% a 0 E a) 60A cY N 50A N a� 40.% a N 30A o 0 20.% 10.% .o o� CL .0 � Ud�a Q 0Ua�: Q�O ao� a Q0 D-)D0 7 ,u.�¢�-� Qcn0zpQ2--) QCn0z0-1Li- < <U)0►L2Q� Effluent Suspended - — 30 mg/I Effluent Solids —•— % Suspended Solids — — 85% Removal Lower Solids Limit Removal Limit Stearns & Wheler Table 4 Ithaca Area WWTF Operational Parameters Surface Overflow Rates (GPD/ ft.2) Final Settlina Tanks Flow Parameter Year Average Des!9m Ava. Peak Dav, 1990 479 509 1,228 1991 447 461 861 1992 452 463 1,059 1993 384 1,000 10 States Std's Primary Settlina Tanks Flow Parameter Year Average Design Ava. Peak Day 1990 855 909 2,192 1991 798 823 1,476 1992 808 827 1,891 1993 914 2,382 Peak Hourly, 1,667 1,633 1,573 1,250 1.200 Peak Hourly 2,976 2,917 2,809 2.976 10 States Std's 1,500-3,000 Stearns & Wheler flow rates on those days and a linear regression analysis was performed. The plots show that effluent BOD concentrations remained below 30 mg/1 with daily flows greater than 16 mgd. There were six sampling days when the daily flows exceeded 12 mgd and numerous days when the daily flow exceeded the design maximum monthly flow of 10.0 mgd. The linear regression analysis illustrates, as expected, a slight increase in effluent BOD concentration with increased flow and a ~ slight decrease in removal efficiency, however, the effluent concentration remained below 30 mg/1 at all daily flows including those daily flows above 10.0 mgd. The plots of effluent BOD and BOD removal efficiency versus the instantaneous peak flow on those sampling days generally show a similar trend. The effluent BOD remained below 30 mg/1 under all peak flow conditions. The 30 mg/1 effluent limit refers to a monthly average and not a maximum daily limit. These data show that solids washout from the final settling tanks did not occur under any flow conditions encountered. The effluent BOD correlates with effluent TSS and if solids washout had occurred, then effluent BOD quality would have deteriorated significantly at high flows. The results show that at a peak SOR of 1,600 gpd/ft2 for the final settling tanks, excellent effluent • quality was still achieved, indicating that the plant can effectively treat peak flows up to 30 mgd. Consequently, it can be stated that the plant can handle average daily flows greater than the maximum monthly desig- flow of 10.0 mgd and peak flows greater than the original plant peak design flow of 24.7 mgd. The performance of such units as chlorinators, sulfonators, chemical feed system for phosphorus were evaluated and determined to have adequate capacity for all flow conditions encountered. Solids handling units such as the sludge thickeners, anaerobic digesters, and sludge dewatering were also evaluated. Due to the underloading of the plant in terms of BOD and TSS, the existing solids handling units have excess capacity relative to the flow component of the plant in determining overall plant capacity. Table 5 summarizes available data on waste activated sludge, total solids concentrations, and sludge quantities compared to design estimates. Table 6 summarizes available data on digester loadings and performance. The "design average" loadings and operating conditions for 1991 and 1992 were used to compare • actual unit process loadings to the original design basis and to typical design standards. A Us WAS Flow (GPD) Mass (lb/day) 1990 192,000 6,010 1991 180,000 5,060 1992 203,000 5,060 Design 302,000 10,100 Table 5 Ithaca Area WWTF Sludge Production Sludge Solids Concentrations ( mg/1) WAS Thickened Digested 3,760 48,100 3,370 40,620 2,990 37,430 41,740 4,000 Dewatered Sludge % T.S. Mass (Dry lb/day) 23.3 4,890 22.9 6,760 22.7 4,300 >20 14,600 Notes: 1. Estimated quantity of primary sludge is 5,900 Ibs/day; Design quantity is 10,500 Ibs/day. 2. Estimated quantity of combined sludge to thickeners is 11,300 Ibs/day; design quanitiy is 20,600 Ibs/d Stearns & Wheler Table 6 Ithaca Area WWTF Digester Performance Loading* % VSS Destruction Digester Gas Production Lb VSS11000 ft3/day (Ib VSS/day) (ft3/day) 1990 6,100 - 65,410 34 1991 8,420 - 47,210 46 1992 5,370 50.4 61,000 30 Design 15,620 50 86 • Estimated Stearns & Wheler I summary of this comparison is contained in Table 7 for major process units and equipment. The actual unit process loadings are listed with the number of tanks that were in service. To show what the actual loadings would be if all tanks were in service, rates and conditions are also listed under the column "All Tanks." Each of the unit processes was evaluated on the basis of its original design parameter such as peak flow and maximum monthly BOD, historic performance, and design standards to determine its performance limiting capacity. Under the revised standards, actual design average loadings were used in lieu of maximum monthly conditions where maximum monthly loadings were used as the original basis of design in sizing that unit. It can be seen from Table 7 that those units and equipment sized on the basis of a peak design flow of 24.7 mgd could limit re -rating of the plant since peak hourly flows have exceeded 24.7 mgd. t = As previously stated, it should be noted that all peak flows have been pumped through the plant without need of a controlled diversion. To increase the peak design flow capacity of the plant, the units that would need to be modified are as follows: A. Raw Wastewater Pumps. Peak design pumping rate is 25 mgd with three pumps in L't service and one standby pump. " B. Final Settling Tanks. Peak flow is limited by Ten -State Standards recommended peak SOR of 1,200 gpd/ft2, which corresponds to a peak hourly rate of 24 mgd. C. Controlled Diversion Pumps. Peak pumping capacity is 24 mgd. As previously noted, the final settling tanks have been operated at peak SORs in excess of 1,600 gpd/ft2 and achieved good effluent quality. At a SOR of 1,600 gpd/ft2 and all four tanks in service, the peak flow capacity of these units would be 30.0 mgd. Based on the above, the plant has excess capacity for all major design parameters without modifications except for peak hourly flows. Based on the revised recommended standards, the average limiting flow capacity is the "design average" flow in lieu of the maximum monthly design flow of 10 mgd. Consequently, the design average flow capacity can be increased to 10 mgd. IM TABLE 7 LISTING OF FACILITIES TO ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Design Average '91 & '92 Current Loadinas(3)_ Item Design Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Mechanical Screenina Equipment Number of units 2 Capacity, mgd 30 24.5 Parshall Flume Throat width, in. 36 Flow range, mgd 0.6-32.6 24.5 Influent Wastewater Pumps Number of pumps (including standby) 4 Capacity (gpm) Constant speed 2 @ 5600 Variable speed 2 @ 7200 Total capacity with largest pump out of service, mgd 25 24.5 Peak w/largest pump O.O.S Grit Removal Number of cyclones 4 Cyclone size, in. 12 Capacity per unit, gal/nun 200 Primary SettinLy Tanks Number of tanks 4 2 4 Tank dimensions, ft. Length x width 105 x 40 Sidewater depth 14 • Limiting 25 mgd Steams & Wheler Page 7-1 • Item Primary Settling Tanks (continued) Surface overflow rates, gpd/SF Maximum month average flow Peak hourly flow Primary Sludge Pumps Number of pumps (including standby) Pump capacity, gal/min Aeration Tanks Number of tanks Tank dimensions, ft. Length Width Sidewater depth Hydraulic detention time, hr. Maximum month flow Peak flow Solids retention time, days MLSS concentration, mg/l MLVSS concentration, mg/l F/M (lbs/day/lb MLVSS) Organic loading, lb BOD/day/1,000 CF Aeration Eauinment Number of blowers Blower capacity, scfm * at MLSS = 3,000 mg/l . Ato A TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average '91 & '92 Current Loadinas(3)_ Design Data (1)(2) Actual - All Tanks Design Stds AM Auft Adt!� :Aw • Limiting 595 825 413 800-1,200 13.4 mgd 1,490 2,920 1,460 1,500-3,000 49 mgd 3 @ 200 4 3 4 100 41 16 4.7 5.1 6.8 1.9 1.4 1.9 6.5 3,200 1,420 1,000-3,000 2,240 1,010 0.32 0.63 0.47 0.2-0.5 6,900-17,200lbs BOD/day * 45 39 29 40 12,800 lbs BOD/day 4 @ 2300 Steams & Wheler Page 7-2 Item Final Settling Tanks Number of tanks Tank dimensions, ft. Length Width Sidewater depth Surface overflow rates, gpd/SF Maximum month average flow Peak hourly flow Peak solids loading rate, lb/day/ft2 (Maximum daily flow) Return Sludge Pumps Number of pumps (including standby) Total capacity with largest pump out of service, gal/min Percent of maximum month design flow Waste Sludae Pumos Number of pumps (including standby) Pump capacity, gal/min Percent of design average flow Phosphorus Removal Sv_ stem Stripper tank Number of units Diameter, ft. Sidewater depth Solids retention time, hr. Phosphorus -enriched sludge flow TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average'91 &'92 Current Loadinu(3)_ Design Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Limiting, 4 125 40 13 500 1,230 5 6,900 15-100 4 @ 70 3 2 60 20 10 40% of RAS 3 461 1,630 50 4.5 M 346 1,220 1,200 24 mgd 50 21.5 mgd 15-100 0.5-25 (min.) 10 mgd Stearns & Wheler Page 7-3 logo !olft M� M� M� M� M� Art POOM W� r+ • • • Item Phosphorus Removal Svstem, (continued) Phosphorus stripped sludge pumps Number of pumps Total capacity with largest pump out of service, gal/min Chemical feed pumps Peak dosage capacity, lb/day Number of pumps Chemical feed pumps (standby) Peak dosage capacity, lb/day Total storage volume, gal. Chlorination Facilities Number of chlorinators Total capacity with largest chlorinator out of service, lb/day Dosage rate at peak flow, mg/1 Dechlorination Facilities Number of sulfonators Total capacity with largest sulfonator out of service, lb/day TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average '91 & '92 Current Loadings(3) Design Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Limiting 3 1,400 1,900 lime 2 15,800 (alum) 10,300 (ferrous sulfate) 6,000 (ferric chloride) 20,000 2 2,000 5 2 475 4.2 N. 57 mgd Steams & Wheler Page 7-4 TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average '91 & '92 Current Loadings(3) Item Design Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Limiting Sludge Thickening_ Tanks Number 2 Dimensions, ft. Diameter 40 Sidewater depth 12 Maximum month solids loading, lb/day/SF 11 (with septage) 4.5 12-20 Overflow rate, gal/day/SF 700 250 Thickened Sludge Pumps Number of pumps (including standby) . 3 Total capacity with largest pump out of service, gal/min 160 Thickener Makeup/Stripper Elutriation Pumps Number of pumps (including standby) 2 Total capacity with largest pump out of service, gal/min 820/420 Anaerobic Sludge Digesters Primary digester Number of units 1 Diameter, ft. 85 Operating sidewater depth, ft. 32 Usable volume, CF 181,600 Volatile solids loading, lb/1000 CF/day 86 37 80 Detention time, days 16.5 47 15 Stearns & Wheler Page 7-5 • Item Anaerobic SludLye Digesters (continued) Secondary digester Number of units Diameter, ft. Operating sidewater depth, ft. Usable volume, CF Total digester capacity, CF Gas storage capacity, CF Belt Filter Press Number of filters Total filter width, m. Filter loading rate, lb/m/hr Estimated operating period, hr/wk Sentaae Treatment Facilities Screening, Number Storage tanks Number Total volume, gal. Transfer pumps Number (including standby) Capacity, gal/min Controlled Diversion. Pumped Number of pumps Capacity, mgd @ Total capacity, mgd TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average '91 & '92 Current LoadinLYs(3)— Desian Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Limiting 1 85 28 158,900 340,500 49,900 2 4 850 30 1 2 30,000 2 200 12 24 24.5 24 mgd Stearns & Wheler Page 7-6 AMIW6 ®�AM I. 1. ` .,. ,+,fin+ Item Sludge Conditioning Systems Transfer pumps Number Capacity, gal/hr Feed pumps Number Capacity, gal/hr Storage, gal. TABLE 7 (Continued) Design Average '91 & '92 Current Loadings(3) Design Data (1)(2) Actual All Tanks Design Stds. Limiting 2 15 3 600 6,000 (1) Design average flow = maximum 30 consecutive day arithmetic mean flow = 10.0 mgd. (2) Design peak hourly flow = 24.7 (3) Per revised Ten -State Standards, design average flow = average flow during seasonal period (school year). Stearns & Wheler Page 7-7 7 SECTION 4 - OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE • Based on operating records for the last three and one-half years, there have been three instances of non-compliance all of which were related to peak flow conditions as follows: 1. Settleable Solids. Effluent settleable solids exceeded permit limit on one occasion due to peak flow. 2. Monthly Average Flow. The permit limit of 10 mgd was exceeded in April 1993 when the average flow was 13.5 mgd. 3. Percent BOD Removal. The permit limit of a minimum of 85% removal, on a monthly basis, was not met in April 1993 when the removal efficiency was 84.2% due to rdilution of the influent. The influent BOD concentration was diluted to 82 mg/l compared to the annual average concentration of 130-140 mg/l. Although the average effluent BOD concentration for the month was 13 mg/l (well below the required 30 mg/1), the percent removal criteria could not be met due to the dilute nature of the wastewater. • As illustrated b the above the plant has performed y p p orm d exceedingly well under all flow conditions including the extreme flow conditions encountered in Spring 1993. • Increasing the rated plant flow is not expected to have any adverse impact on those units sized on the basis of other parameters such as the aeration tanks or solids handling units. The recommended re -rated plant design capacity without modifications is summarized in Table 8. The maximum monthly design loadings for BOD and TSS would remain the same as the original design basis, although a slight increase is listed in the annual average BOD loading based on the allowable BOD loading for aeration tanks on a design average basis and the actual peaking factor for maximum month to annual average. Since the design BOD and suspended solids loadings would remain unchanged on a maximum monthly basis, there would be no impact on facilities such as sludge thickening and dewatering which were sized as the basis of maximum monthly solids loads. The recommended re -rated flow capacity is 10.0 mgd on a design average basis, i.e., the previous maximum monthly design flow. The net result would be to increase the annual average design flow from 7.5 mgd to 9.75 mgd, or a remaining capacity of 3.0 mgd compared to -7- TABLE 8 RE -RATED DESIGN CAPACITY ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Original 1991 and 1992 Re -Rated Design Actual Design Flow, mgd Annual Average Design Average Maximum Month Peak BOD, lbs/day Annual Average Design Average Maximum Month TSS, lbs/day Annual Average Design Average Maximum Month Total Phosphorus, lbs/day Annual Average Design Average Maximum Month Peaking Factor, Max. Month/Annual Average Flow BOD TSS Total Phosphorus Peaking Factor, Max. Month/Design Average Flow BOD TSS Total Phosphorus 7.5 6.75 9.75 -- 6.93 10.0 10.0 8.05 13.1* 24.7 24.5 24.7 11,300 7,360 12,200 -- 7,720 12,800 15,130 9,120 15,130 16,200 8,910 16,200 -- 9,150 17,860 21,620 11,490 21,620 340 220 340 --- 233 397 453 272 453 1.34 1.18 1.34 1.34 1.23 1.23 1.34 1.24 1.24 1.33 1.21 1.21 -- 1.15 1.31 -- 1.17 1.17 -- 1.21 1.21 -- 1.14 1.14 * Based on design peaking factor of 1.34. Stearns & Wheler • the current annual average flow rate of 6.75. To summarize, the remaining average capacity for each parameter would be as follows: Total Remaining Capacity Flow, mgd Annual Average 3.0 Design Average 3.1 BOD, lbs/day Annual Average 4,850 Design Average 5,100 Suspended Solids, lbs/day Annual Average 7,150 Design Average 8,700 Total Phosphorus, lbs/day Annual Average 120 Design Average 165 I By increasing the average flow to the plant, the net result would be to increase the peak flow • received at the plant. As the current peak flows exceed the original design peak flow, modifications to those units sized on the basis of peak flow will be required unless sewer rehabilitation work is performed to reduce the quantity of inflow (stormwater) to reduce the peak flow to 24.7 mgd or below. Table 9 summarizes required modifications to increase the peak flow capacity of the plant and estimated cost for each item. Based on demonstrated plant performance, it should be argued j that another final settling tank would not be required although the recommended design standard in 1 Ten -State Standards would be exceeded. SECTION 5 - CONCLUSIONS The study concludes that: 1. The IAWWTP is not operating at design capacity. Approximately 10 percent of flow, 35 percent of BOD, and 45 percent TSS capacity is presently unused and remains, on an annual average basis. 2. Flow, specifically peak flow, is the design parameter of most concern in re -rating the • plant. Therefore, the capacity of those units sized on the basis of peak flow will be the most critical to re -rating. Those units include: M on" Iuu* auft w� ...... .�. r... TABLE 9 PEAK FLOW CAPACITY AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Unit Process Existing Unit Peak Contributing Modified Peak Flow Modification or Eauinment Flow Capacity (MGD) Factor Modification Capacity (MGD) Cost Raw Wastewater 25 Pump Capacity a. Replace Motors/ 32 $160,000 Pumps Variable Frequency Drives b. Add 5th Pump/Variable 32 Frequency Drive Controlled Diversion 24 Pump Capacity Replace Impellers 32 $60,000 Final Settling Tanks 24 Surface Area a. Add One Final Settling 30 $920,000 Tank b. Approval of SOR to 30 1,600 gpd/ft2 c. Rehabilitate Sewer 24.7 Unknown* System to Reduce Inflow * Estimate of the cost to rehabilitate the collection system to reduce inflow is beyond the scope of this study. Stearns & Wheler 1 - Raw wastewater pumps = Controlled diversion pumps Primary settling tanks - Final settling tanks Chlorination/dechlorination equipment Outfall 3. Evaluation of unit processes and equipment at the plant indicates that the existing raw wastewater pumps and controlled diversion pumps do not have adequate capacity to handle the re -rated plant flow. Costs to modify both sets of pumps for a 30 mgd capacity, are estimated to be $290,000. 4. On the basis of recommended design standards, the existing final settling tanks would be hydraulically overloaded at the re -rated capacity (30 mgd). However, actual operating data has demonstrated the ability of the units to effectively treat peak flows greater than { 30 mgd. The City of Ithaca has agreed to install baffles and additional weir length to the final clarifiers. Costs to modify all four tanks are estimated to be $60,000. 5. All sludge treatment and disposal facilities at IAWWTP have excess unused capacity and will not be impacted by re -rating the capacity of the plant. 6. The 1990 edition of Ten -State Standards establishes recommended design standards which are to be applied to "design average" flows and loadings. The IAWWTP was designed in 1984 applying these recommended standards to the estimated maximum 30-day average flow. This result was to produce a more conservatively designed treatment facility. Applying the recommended standards to design average conditions results in a re -rated plant capacity of 13.1 mgd on a maximum 30-day average basis. SECTION 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided to assist the SJS in pursuing a revision to the SPDES Discharge Permit: 1. Determine anticipated future conditions to determine if re -rated capacity recommended in this report provides the needed additional capacity. M 2. Propose to the NYSDEC to increase rated capacity of existing final settling tanks by • allowance of a higher surface overflow rate than recommended in Ten -State Standards. 3. Submit permit application to the NYSDEC to request an increase in the rated flow capacity of the plant by revising the SPDES Discharge Permit. 16 I 0 4. Upon acceptance of re -rated capacity, provide modifications to plant components (raw wastewater, controlled diversion pumps, and final settling tanks) to increase peak flow capacity. 5. Submit an Environmental Assessment Form (SEQRA documentation) and final engineering report to the NYSDEC in support of the permit application for review and approval. _10- OWN wt sow J. V ak—myms a t"w,Wj - - - - - - - - - - - 40, ns A MAN 0 W 1 M"MVCN--QOTW 01, t QW, Von am OJUNNO VOW vivo: . . . . . . . . . . . ArrG, SIM+,: SMrr, rrn. fir,: iISMW chfi2m, arft; 3i Ili Daily Average MGD January 5.77 February 4.80 March 7.52 April 13.50 May 6.82 June July August September October November December Annual Average 7.68 January February March April May Flows Peak Instantaneous Day Maximum MGD MGD 7.63 12.0 5.69 11.0 15.20 20.3 20.00 25.0 10.39 15.0 Influent Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) 6,590 5,643 8,264 6,856 9,270 8,580 9,265 7,693 7,315 7,252 June July August September October November December Annual Average 8,141 7,205 Influent and Effluent Characteristics 1993 Influent Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) 137 117 207 171 148 137 82 68 129 128 140 124 Effluent Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) 498 221 406 165 701 390 1,461 1,001 873 193 788 394 Effluent Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) 10.4 4.6 10.2 4.1 11.2 6.2 13.0 8.9 15.3 3.4 12.0 5.4 Percent Removal Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus 92.4% 96.1% 95.1% 97.6% 92.4% 95.5% 84.2% 87.% 88.1% 97.3% 90.5% 94.7% Influent and Effluent Characteristics 1992 Flows Influent Effluent Percent Removal Daily Peak Instantaneous Suspended Total Suspended Total Suspended Total Average Day Maximum BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus MGD MGD MGD (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/I) (mq/I) (mq/I) January 6.88 8.70 14.8 119 149 4.0 10.9 5.1 0.6 90.9% 96.6% 85.2% February 6.89 8.53 12.7 156 183 4.7 12.4 7.1 0.7 92.0% 96.1% 85.8% March 7.89 15.89 23.6 112 160 3.5 4.8 7.4 0.4 95.7% 95.4% 87.2% April 7.82 8.86 14.0 130 139 3.8 6.5 4.4 0.5 95.0% 96.8% 86.1% May 6.68 8.38 12.5 128 151 4.2 9.7 4.0 0.7 92.4% 97.3% 83.6% June 6.49 11.83 17.8 90 122 3.4 6.4 2.8 0.3 92.9% 97.7% 89.8% July 5.96 9.00 20.5 101 139 3.6 4.7 2.0 0.4 95.3% 98.6% 88.3% August 6.48 11.28 23.0 120 166 3.3 6.4 2.4 0.5 94.7% 98.6% 85.7% September 7.21 9.99 20.0 137 161 4.1 9.7 2.3 0.7 93.0% 98.6% 83.0% October 6.33 7.61 15.0 147 152 5.1 15.7 3.3 0.8 89.3% 97.8% 83.5% November 6.93 9.59 16.7 140 124 3.7 12.3 4.5 0.7 91.2% 96.4% 80.1% December 5.94 10.37 15.7 152 187 3.7 9.3 4.3 0.8 93.9% 97.7% 78.8% Annual Average 6.79 128 153 3.9 9.1 4.1 0.6 93.0% 97.3% 84.8% Design Average 6.95 136 156 4.1 10.1 4.7 0.7 92.6% 97.0% 83.7% Influent Effluent Suspended Total Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus (lb/day) (lb/dav) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) January 6,843 8,542 229 624 293 35 February 8,941 10,516 272 713 408 39 March 7,374 10,524 231 316 487 29 April 8,505 9,039 247 426 287 34 May 7,103 8,401 232 539 223 37 June 4,881 6,614 183 346 152 19 July 5,014 6,922 179 234 99 20 August 6,480 8,971 180 343 130 25 September 8,253 9,665 246 581 138 42 October 7,747 8,016 270 830 174 44 November 8,082 7,169 216 711 260 43 December 7,524 9,261 183 462 213 42 Annual Average 7,229 8,637 222 510 239 34 Design Average 7.819 9.015 236 578 276 38 0 Influent and Effluent Characteristics 1991 Flows Influent Effluent Percent Removal Daily Peak Instantaneous Suspended Total Suspended Total Suspended Total Average Day Maximum BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/I) (mq/1) (mq/I) (mq/I) January 7.06 9.72 19.8 109 121 9.4 6.9 0.7 91.4% 94.3% February 7.06 8.44 13.5 135 158 7.5 6.3 1.0 94.4% 96.0% March 7.55 12.40 20.5 118 109 9.2 4.9 0.4 92.2% 95.5% April 8.05 12.92 19.0 120 153 7.9 3.8 0.6 93.4% 97.5% May 6.87 8.36 12.9 98 179 3.9 9.1 4.8 0.8 90.7% 97.3% 79.0% June 5.95 7.37 24.5 144 217 6.3 3.2 0.6 95.6% 98.5% July 6.17 8.17 16.5 134 159 3.6 9.5 6.9 0.6 92.9% 95.7% 82.6% August 6.23 8.20 12.5 139 165 3.9 7.4 2.8 0.7 94.7% 98.3% 82.3% September 6.59 7.71 13.5 166 209 8.5 3.6 1.0 94.9% 98.3% October 6.22 7.35 12.0 170 210 5.0 7.3 3.0 0.6 95.7% 98.6% 88.6% November 6.54 8.01 13.0 151 168 4.1 13.0 5.6 0.7 91.4% 96.7% 82.5% December 6.22 9.31 15.0 133 142 4.2 9.5 3.4 0.5 92.9% 97.6% 87.6% Annual Average 6.71 135 166 4.1 8.7 4.6 0.7 93.3% 97.0% 83.8% Design Average 6.91 133 161 9.0 4.7 93.0% 96.9% Influent Effluent Suspended Total Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus (lb/day) (lb/dav) (lb/day) (lb/dav) (lb/dav) (lb/day) January 6,418 7,125 555 406 39 February 7,949 9,303 443 371 57 March 7,430 6,863 582 307 23 April 8,056 10,272 532 255 38 May 5,615 10,256 221 523 275 46 June 7,146 10,753 316 161 29 July 6,892 8,178 184 490 352 32 August 7,222 8,573 200 387 143 35 September 9,123 11,487 469 198 53 October 8,817 10,892 259 379 154 30 November 8,236 9,163 224 711 305 39 December 6,894 7,360 218 494 177 27 Annual Average 7,483 9,185 217 490 259 37 Design Average 7,615 9,191 521 272 Influent and Effluent Characteristics 1990 Flows Influent Effluent Percent Removal Daily Peak Instantaneous Suspended Total Suspended Total Suspended - Total Average Day Maximum BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus MGD MGD MGD (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) (mq/1) January 5.86 8.06 18.3 113 135 9.7 5.9 91.4% 95.6% February 8.91 13.82 20.5 107 123 9.8 7.7 90.8% 93.7% March 6.44 7.65 12.3 125 170 6.6 3.5 94.7% 97.9% April 7.89 13.03 18.0 101 139 8.4 3.9 91.7%• 97.2% May 7.51 10.83 16.0 108 132 10.8 4.0 90.0% 97.0% June 5.40 6.94 10.7 110 138 9.8 3.7 91.1% 97.3% July 6.05 7.18 11.5 117 137 6.1 2.0 94.8% 98.5% August 6.16 8.81 21.0 104 143 10.0 3.4 90.3% 97.6% September 7.08 8.16 16.4 150 169 14.4 6.0 90.4% 96.5% October 9.19 18.42 25.0 121 262 10.7 3.5 91.1 % 98.7% November 7.99 13.13 21.0 134 150 10.3 3.9 92.3% 97.4% December 7.85 12.20 18.6 110 128 11.6 6.1 89.4% 95.2% Annual Average 7.19 117 152 9.9 4.5 91.5% 96.9% Design Average 7.64 119 156 10.3 4.9 91.3% 96.6% Influent Effluent Suspended Total Suspended Total BOD Solids Phosphorus BOD Solids Phosphorus (lb/day) (lb/dav) (lb/dav) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/dav) January 5,498 6,573 475 290 February 7,921 9,118 733 573 March 6,687 9,131 357 188 April 6,653 9,120 552 257 May 6,771 8,293 678 251 June 4,950 6,228 442 167 July 5,919 6,908 310 101 August 5,317 7,367 517 175 September 8,851 9,991 852 354 October 9,251 20,096 826 268 November 8,936 10,022 690 260 December 7,208 8,367 764 399 Annual Average 6,997 9,268 600 273 Design Average 7,531 10,079 658 316 Flow (MGD) N N O U7 O CIt O CT1 01 /01 /90 = 01 /31 /90 � 03/02/90 04/01/90 C,'5/01 /90- - 0,5/31 /90 - 06/30/90 07/30/90 - - 08/29/90-- 09/28/90 = _ -��-_- 10/28/90--- 11/27/90- 12/27/90- 01/28/91- 02/27/91-�----- 03/29/91 04/28/91 = - - 05/28/91 - --- - 06/27/91 08/26/91 09/25/91- 10/25/91 11/24/91- 12/24/91 01 /25/92- 02/24/92 03/25/92 y, -1- - - - - -- - 04/24/92 r 05/24/92- 06/23/92_=_ 07/23/92 09/21 /92_ - -T-- 10/21 /92 11/20/92 12/20/92- 01/21/93- 02/20/93 51 ` 03/22/93- 04/21/93 05/21 /93`ter s C • 25 NE 15 g 10 1 Daily Average and Instantane49 0 ous Peak Flows 1993 � 0� 0 co O� co p� M \ O co D- 04 O ` co O co Q\ co O\ 0 c+) O\ co O �'— Daily Avg Flow Daily Peak Flow CD 01 /01 /92 01 /31 /92 03/01 /92 - 03/31/92 - 04/30/92 05/30/92 - 06/29/92 07/29/92 c 08/28/92 09/27/92 10/27/92 11/26/92 12/26/92 Flow (MGD) cn o cn r ■ —M p� M All • r� r ■ r ■ ! r O (A ■s, 25 20 ■ � I Daily Average and Daily Peak Flows 1991 ■ LI 0 o, o 0 0 0T o, \ \ r N O O U co 00 n n O_ co O O O ch c7 c7 N N N N N \ ` \p CD O O � co O1 O N O O O O O I. ���P.J.:l1. r.�-�+..s. .a`�:3`. .. '.r.�,,. ,,... s'... t%.:'-4Y;1s�b.�TfLR{ti.''a �Y,'• :'i:.'viti'.`f.:z"�1�� r+.r�.... <i �^,` .3+i/'7.W". 'S,L }. n':r:4�.�'".'iti73iw°:�'tir.I �t�5'C.��iT�`2Xr?�d�:��i�"a.�.n�.a..°�f..ii�7'�1�4zr�1�Y.�.'.�a`�r ... ���. L3}�e�l��r,.'..n?diZH:i�.13�ii;".�'�.r.�.7[,:'LSs'�..L'.�k*o'��i.L•C.x"�L:shl4ti:91 "r1'4S9Ns_•.iStleriYScS'N: 0 C3 a , 0 .9 2 LA- -OMR-1-0 Daily Average and Instantaneous Peak Flow 1990 25 A-Z 20 15 10 5 0 O O co 0 CN 0 m 0 0 c Is 0 LO 0 m 8 m 0 CNI CC) 0 CC) C11 9 CC) N 0 CN C%j I t:! i ^.S -•�! a `t _'?•",: \.: J, A jug .. .>.. -_� n . ...-.- ..r e - 4.. .r..• t.Y. �.-..-. ... w.r._,_ .:-.. .. .._ .. ,... -..-..... .e., .. •'III L scow! avows m'AI � i r�r h' ✓-Y' - i �i J- r, n,J , M f•. .ar - `•O i ta'� •6.l.. el•. •-vi - - �z. ISO! 0 i` is a 1 r- .r1•. f�l lV "l+ CST •, :sY •- - i. . 3 •' ' t b` Y%• - r*. t 4 N ti'K +•i= •.i.<:�u'='dam J-isSC�'�� r.�;b ii �• - .,41 t.. j. �,* •r 4' ��^ �.. y.r err:: �l: v'•..:" Jr' n fir. 6; 4 t•: " f :'•b a'. .7' aS K" f: f1 .0 d i f'• :1 i°• �t �t Jj: ,•:k::^ fir.: �.i •r �r ti l r. :a - r r n.- �• a :ice • :.. i v' �r '1 ^.., r. •. d;, 'u z.+ y� of �fi �+ i'• " y :.,. ; .a< .Li t' :7• �!•s �r , - r4 l f' t: 7v %•7 • y; Y., ��\ : ern' •'t rFI 7 ^• ai �ti+ 3•y , ! ti 1. �'l • � �A.�: r'Jv m,Ty A�! yr ,a-. `:•1': ` it ; _ •�('. i � 'QC."µ cX ' 11 } ":r'1:',y:itC t P.•- '':fig-10 -i �Jr rr - ',h•, :nit%c;:, rk:: ;':••' SST• :.�., - f•5'+ir:,'i,..•. .t'. .r t i• i1 • 30 - — 25 — Effluent BOD5 vs. Daily Flow 1993 r ■ 20 — LO 0 O,. m � 15 W ■� 10 ■ ■ r 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Daily Average Flow (MGD) ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression M7 -MAW, % 130D Removed vs. Daily Flow 1993 90.00 — 80.00 — a -a 60.00 0 E 0 50.00 0 CO le a 40.00 30.00 -- 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10-00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18-00 20.00 Daily Average Flawrate.(MGD) ■ Actual Values Least Squares Regression • Effluent BOD5 vs. Daily Flow 1992 30 25 20 LO 0 m � ■ 15 �■ ■�■ E■ w ■ ' W ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ wall ■P� ' ■ ■ ■ ■ F■ ■ * ■ 5 '■ ■ ■ ■ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Daily Average Flow (MGD) ' Actual Data — — — Linear Regression Am • "I M C1 70 60 0 E a) Cx 50 LO 0 0 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 %BOD5 Removed vs. Daily Flow 1992 El 'Mi :011MI.M. 111"I a N M 0 N 1 E 6 Daily Flows (MGD) N. 10 12 ■ Actual Data Linear Regression • W 30 25 20 IN 5 0 0 6 Effluent BOD5 vs. Daily Flow 1991 ■ ■ ■ r.■ ■ no ■ ■ ■ In ■ ■ ■ ■ .= m m— ■ r � m • 0 NNE ■ ■ ■ p• ■ • r ■ ■ 4 6 8 10 12 Daily Average Flow (MGD) MI ■ Actual Data Linear Regression • • • %BOD5 Removed vs. Daily Flow 1991 100 -- ��t�•lrr��� ri �• ■■ 90 80 — •• ■ 70 - - 60 — 0 m ■ Actual Data 50 — o — — — Linear Regression O m 40 — 30 20 — 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily Flows (MGD) • Effluent BOD5 vs. Dailylow is 1990 30 25 20 ISM ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ m ' ■ • Actual Data 15 E ■ ■ ■ Linear Regression w. ■ W ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ no ■ ■ ■ L■ 1� 0 r ■ Lq �■ 6 ' ■ ■ ■ WE ■■• or. ■■■ ■ : ■ . 5 ■ ■ La ■■ ■ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily Average Flow (MGD) • %BOD5 Removed vs. Daily Flow 1990 100 • L• • 7 a-MRO ■uta■ i 'I.ti ■ . W. � .i ■ ■ ■ • sip ■ 80 • 70 60 0 50 0 O CO o 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Daily Flows (MGD) 12 14 ■ Actual Data Linear Regression Effluent BOD5 vs. Instantaneous Peak Flows 1993 30 25 20 LO 0 O,. m � _ c15 w /f W ..�: on 10 ` ■ ■ MR 5 0 I 0 5 10 15 Daily Peak Flow (MGD) ■ 20 25 ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression • 30 25 20 W 5 Effluent BOD5 vs. Instantaneous Peak Flows 1992 I 0 5 10 15 Daily Peak Flow (MGD) r 20 25 ■ Actual Data Linear Regression %BOD5 Removal vs. Instantaneous Peak Flow 1992 100 ■ ■ • , ■■ ■ ■ 80 70 60 0 o0c 50 0 O m 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 IL Peak Flow (MGD) 15 20 25 ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression J 91-1.XL art 8 Effluent BOD5 vs. Instantaneous Peak Flows 1991 30 — 25 — 20 In ■ o ■ O.. ■ m � ■ 15 — ■ m ■■ ■ � 91t W ■ 10 — ■ ■ _ _ ■mot'' M �" t: ■_t_■_—.. _ : — �— Jf—_-.: _ — — — ■■ 'oil ■ ■ ■ ■ ■k r■lt. . ■ 5 _ ''ML■ `■ ILK ■ ■ bm ■ ■ 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Daily Peak Flow (MGD) ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression %BOD5 Removal vs. Instantaneous Peak Flow 1991 100 -- On III 90 ■ ■ ■ 80 - - 70 — 60 — 0 E m 50 - - 0 O on 0 40 30 — 20 - - 0 I I I I i 0 5 10 15 20 25 Peak Flow (MGD) ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression a —,I, u_• .•�u 25 Effluent BOD5 vs. Instantaneous Peak Flows 1990 ■ 20 ■ .■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ LO 15 ,. ■ Ca ME .■ c E ■ ■ ■■ ■ W ' ■ �. 10 ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ �f■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 5 ' ■ ■ ■ 0 0 5 10 15 20 Daily Peak Flow (MGD) 25 ■ Actual Data — — — Linear Regression • M E, :S 70 60 0 E � 50 LO 0 O m 0 40 20 10 0 0 5 %BOD5 Removal vs. Instantaneous Peak Flow 1990 ■ ■ ■ �� R_* ■■R Pv IaLLR■■ ■ ■ ■" r■ ��l_ R !� ■ ■ y ■ ■■■"a■•�■.■.■ ■ R i■ ■ ■ -R■ Lot t ice—_ ■ ■ ■ Peak Flow (MGD) ■ 15 20 25 ■ Actual Data Linear Regression rt Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Its Role in a Monitorina Proaram Jose Lozano & Roxanna Johnston Ithaca - Summer 1999. Photograph courtesy of Bob Pfeiff Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Monitoring Program CONTENTS Executive Summary The Watershed Approach Relevance to the IAWWTF (i) Introduction TMDLs, SWAP, or WQS ? 1 Water and Watersheds 2 IAWWTF stakeholder rights and TMDL implementation 4 Monitoring water quality 5 Water Quality Monitoring Program 15 Phosphorus Loading - The Watershed Approach Cayuga Lake and the IAWWTF effluent 16 Sources of nutrients and pesticides 18 Watershed Projects 19 Budget Summary 25 Resumes: 26 Roxanna Johnston & Jose Lozano Jose Lozano, Director Roxanna Johnston, Water Quality Analyst Environmental Laboratories City of Ithaca EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . The watershed approach to natural resources management and environmental compliance requires the involvement of a multidisciplinary, multi jurisdictional stakeholders partnership, a sound scientific basis, and a geographicaly based approach i.e., focused on a watershed basis. The environmental projects in New York State are funded through the Clean Air - Clean Water Bond Act. Funds are allocated solely to implementation, and the grant proposals are ranked based on the satisfaction of the watershed approach guidelines. Since no funds are provided to conduct monitoring studies, a gap of information could exist to formulate sound implementation proposals. The work conducted by the IAWWTF staff has established a sound multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional partnership that has given the IAWWTF the ability to satisfy the watershed approach requirements to formulate successful grant proposals, for example: The Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Organization, 10, has given a very favorable ranking to the projects proposed by the IAWWTF. The Intermunicipal Sewer Proposal received the highest possible ranking. The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan, currently under development, will carry the 1O's project ranking, thus enabling the highest proposals ranking of the IAWWTF projects. The same success, in obtaining high priority rankings, has been accomplished in the Tompkins County Water Resources Council Water Quality Strategy Plan. A sound scientific basis is attainable in the IAWWTF proposals given the participation of multidisciplinary research teams. The Environmental Laboratories staff has been actively involved in the monitoring of streams, and Cayuga Lake. Among the institutions that participate in these efforts are the United States Geologic Service, USDA Soil and Water Conservation District, the Natural Resources Department and the Center for the Environment, Cornell University. The results of the watershed approach have been (i) the funding of streambank stabilization of Six Mile Creek ($175,000.00), (ii) the use of the City's land adquisition fund as local share for watershed projects (—$200,000.00 during 1999), and (iii) the funding of the proposal by L. Fabbroni, for the Intermunicipal Sewer project. More proposals have been submitted for funding. It is fundamental to obtain the endorsement of these efforts from the SJS. 1 TMDL's, SWAP, or WQS? The current regulatory climate is not exceptionally predictable. The Clean Water Act, CWA, reauthorization hasn't taken place. Instead, the US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has issued guidelines to accomplish environmental compliance. These guidelines are also used to rank environmental projects and the allocation of, limited, monetary resources. The EPA has issued, among several other guidelines, the Watershed Approach recommendation as, what seem to be, the backbone of the current strategy. Each State must formulate a ranked list of water bodies, the Unified Watershed Priority List. Funds are allocated first to water bodies deemed endangered as determined by the existing ecological information. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC, has conducted a couple of evaluation studies in Cayuga Lake, under the RIBS program. The results indicate that Cayuga Lake requires more studies to evaluate the impartment that Nutrients, Sediments and Pesticides might be causing. Cayuga Lake was not a water body listed on the Unified Watershed Priority List. The next RIBS study for Cayuga Lake is scheduled for the year 2003. The Water Quality Standards, WQS, Regulation establishes the criteria to evaluate the water quality requirements that are compatible with a designated use, i.e., recreational, drinking water, fisheries. It also establishes an antidegradation policy that requires the continual improvement of water quality. Cayuga Lake is used as a drinking water supply, its designated use. The IAWWTF discharges into Cayuga Lake waters and, therefore, it is an easily identifiable potential source of impairment. The WQS regulation has been announced as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [July-7-98, 63FR 36742]. WQS regulation will impact every aspect of operation of the IAWWTF, from pretreatment, and treatment requirements to monitoring and plans for expansion. The designated use provision requires that the WQS standards must have actually been attained [40 CFR 131.3(e)]. It is likely that at least part of the expense of attaining, maintaining and monitoring designated uses will fall on POTW's. TMDL's, how much on IAWWTF shoulders? Under any number of legal frameworks and scenarios, including water quality, toxicity, sediments, biological indicators, human health, or nutrients, the role and responsibility of the IAWWTF will be determined with a site -specific set of criteria. Our ability to determine the appropriate set of evaluation parameters depends on the availability of monitoring data. The Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility, IAWWTF, has relied on grant - proposal -funded projects to obtain significant resources. The construction of the IAWWTF, back in 1987, .was made possible because of capital obtained through federal grants. Today's granting policy emphasizes well -integrated, interdisciplinary projects, based on sound research, engineering, and social principles for understanding, protecting, and restoring watershed resources. The guidelines and a detailed description of these criteria can be found in the Interagency Announcement of Opportunity for Grants in 1999 Water and Watersheds (http://www.epa.gov/ncerga). Interagency request for proposals are also the rule, i.e., the EPA/NSF/USDA Partnership for Environmental Research, or the National Science Foundation/ EPA request for proposals. Proponents are encouraged to bring together new approaches to address watershed - scale issues that draw widely from expertise in different disciplines. Watershed -scale approaches are required. The application of these criteria means that funding will be granted first to proposals that take an integrated systems approach, as described in the watershed projects guidelines. The most competitive proposals are those that help integrate the multiple goals of EPA, NSF, and USDA programs. The degree to which disciplinary components and/or their sub -components are integrated in a systems approach will be a review criterion. To assist in understanding this criterion, abstracts from the 1995 - 1998 awards may be reviewed by accessing http://www.ei)a.gov/ncerqa. The proposals should include: 1) Ecological Perspective: The ecological aspects are addressed (diversity and vitality of aquatic biota and ecological processes and/or relationships among populations and communities of organisms. Statistical, mathematical, and bio- or environmental - engineering research on these topics is also included. 2) Physical Perspective: Hydrologic, biogeochemical, chemical, and engineering coverage to address the processes and mechanisms which govern the interactions of nutrients, organic matter, metals, toxic materials, and organisms within and among surface waters, ground waters, sediments, soils, and the atmosphere. This area includes mathematical -statistical modeling and engineering research on these processes. 3) Social Science Perspective: Social science to develop a systemic perspective on, and predictive understanding of, the impacts and spatial aspects of human behavior/attitudes/perceptions/cognition, and social, geographic and economic systems on water resources and watersheds. This area also includes statistical research with a 2 social emphasis. Note that simply demonstrating applicability of the research to social, economic or management issues is not adequate for the purposes of this competition. Some examples of interest include, but are not limited to: 1. Proposals on total maximum daily loads (TMDL's). Under the Clean Water Act, States have the authority to impose TMDL's on the amounts of point and non -point sources of pollution that impair the quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Grant proposals are required to improve our understanding of watershed processes relevant to TMDL's and of analytical methods for determining how changes in the management of upland and riparian areas affect the quality of water bodies. Watershed processes of interest include those that affect stream flow, erosion, sediment transport and routing, stream temperature, stream habitat, inputs of nutrients and toxics, and the relation of these processes to aquatic ecosystem health. Analytical methods of interest include distributed process models and process -related indicators of watershed condition that can be derived from remotely sensed imagery. In addition, research is needed to define disturbance thresholds, understand the cumulative effects of multiple stressors at different scales, and quantitatively define the uncertainty associated with interpretation of model simulations or inferences drawn from indicators. Please refer to the TMDL web site at httD://www.er)a.aov/owow/tmdl/. 2. Watershed Projects that include agricultural activities. Organic wastes from animal and municipal sources, fertilizers and pesticides from agricultural sources, and sediments from all sources provide a challenge in developing strategies for pollution prevention and/or remediation. Proposals are needed to addresses the processes and mechanisms that govern the physical and social interactions within these complex ecosystems. 3. Proposals on the interactions between urbanization and watershed processes. Projects are needed on spatial and temporal scaling; contaminant transport, wet weather flows and runoff, including non-agricultural pesticide runoff, and infiltration from urban/suburban areas; and interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 4. Proposals on rehabilitation of damaged or degraded watersheds. Examples include the ecosystem and societal processes that must be understood before undertaking rehabilitation efforts; and the objective criteria needed to determine if the rehabilitation effort is effective. 3 The implementation and development of Total Maximum Daily Loads, TMDLs, is of great importance to Publicly Owned Treatment Works2, POTWs, such as the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility, IAWWTF. TMDLs are plans, that under the Clean Water Act, intent to meet the Water Quality Standards, WQS, of the Nation's waterbodies. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 9225--The Quality of Our Nation's Waters -- Nutrients and Pesticides (1999), most of the nutrient load discharging into waterbodies originates from non -point sources. Close to three quarters of the nutrients load is originated at non -point sources, rather than point sources, like the IAWWTF. Unfortunately, point sources are highly visible and easily targeted for reductions that might go beyond justifiable margins if a similar reduction, and remediation, is not implemented for non - point sources (see Sources of Nutrients and Pesticides section). The implementation of TMDLs requires a firm legal footing, sound science based on site -specific monitoring data, and cost-effective approaches. It is in the best interest of the IAWWTF to be an involved stakeholder in this process. This involvement will allow the IAWWTF to analyze the veracity of TMDLs on three key aspects: Legal If most of the impairment is originated by non -point sources, the remediation plan should be implemented under other Clean Water Act provisions that address non -point sources remediation, i.e. CWA secc. 319. The monitoring data could even show that the waterbody in question might not even require the TMDLs implementation. Point Sources Allocation No well-defined mechanism to guarantee that non -point sources (storm water and/or farm runoff, golf courses) will participate in the load reduction requirements. The watershed approach3 offers the IAWWTF the opportunity to participate on the Cayuga Lake Management Plan. The participation of IAWWTF staff in this management plan will assure the facility's best representation and work for the involvement of non -point source owners in the plan. Site -specific sound science Is there sufficient data to support a given allocated limit in the IAWWTF permit? Is the best available technology an overkill that will actually not solve the problem? Is the phosphorus load to the South end of the Lake a concern? And, after construction and improvements, how much has the Lake been improved? 1 TMDL's Definition: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are estimates of maximum quantities of specified pollutants that a waterbody can assimilate without violating water quality standards. Once established, TMDLs are used to determine allowable discharge levels of the pollutant in question. 2 AMSA (1999) Evaluating TMDLs ... Protecting the Rights of POTWs. Association of American Sewerage Agencies. Washington. htto://www.amsa-cleanwater.orq 3 See the Watershed Approach section, at the end of this document. n Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Monitorina Proaram A pragmatic approach to evaluate the benefits to the IAWWTF of a water quality monitoring program is to take into account the environmental permiting requirements (NPDES, WQS, or TMDL's), as well as to the funding policies of the NYS Clean Air - Clean Water Bond Act, NYS-BA. The priority for funding, as stablished by the NYS-BA, is based on a set of criteria that is also utilized by many other agencies, i.e. USDA, EPA, DOE, and the NSF. Furthermore, these agencies have unified their requests for proposals, RFP. The proposals are in fact reviewed and evaluated by one review board integrated by all the agencies. The main set of criteria used in the ranking of proposals is the Watershed Approach and the priorities established in the unified watershed assessment. Each State has formulated a unified watershed assessment, as required by the EPA. The water quality monitoring needs should be determined by the information gaps identified in the Cayuga Lake Management Plan, CLMP. These information gaps should accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the South end of Cayuga Lake, since the CLMP is based on the information provided by Tompkis County Water Resources Council, TC-WRC, to the Intermunicipal Organization, 10. The TC-WRC Water Quality Strategy Plan was prepared with the participation of staff and representatives from the IAWWTF, i.e., R. Johnston, J. Lozano, and F. Ligouri. It is expected that the CLMP should be out for review and public coment in about two months. The initial (draft) characterization of the info -gaps should be available within one month. The following pages describe the general strategies for establishing a watershed approach to resource management. The importance of water quality monitoring is not only an integral part of the initial planning, but it is also an indispensable component of the implementation and of the long-term maintenance of environmental integrity. Sincere) , Jose Lozano jII13@cornell.edu 5 Monitorina water quality. The watershed approach to environmental management is based on partnerships, a geographic focus, and Sound Management Techniques based on Strong Science and Data. Collectively, watershed stakeholders employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an iterative decision making process. This includes: 1 i. assessment and characterization; ii. goal setting and identification of environmental objectives; iii. identification of priority problems; iv. development of specific management options and action plans; v. implementation; and vi. evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans. Water quality information data plays a unique and indispensable role in an environmental management program based on the watershed approach. ' Supporting such a watershed approach to environmental management is a high priority for EPA's national water program (See Appendix 1. Watershed Approach). The Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), and the Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAP) also rely on the assessment and characterization of water quality for a successful implementation. The publication of Water Quality Standards (WQS) by both the USEPA and, in 1998, by the NYS DEC' seem to indicate that the immediate future of environmental management is going to be based on Water Quality Criteria. Furthermore, in order to attain a given classification status such as those established by the NYS Unified Watershed Assessment, sound and complete water quality information is required. The allocation of federal and state funds for the improvement of water bodies is dependent on the priorities established by these programs. Cayuga Lake is not a listed water body on the NYS Unified Watershed Assessment. A large amount of water quality information would be required to formulate a successful I petition to the DEC for the inclusion of Cayuga Lake on this assessment The funding priorities are not only determined by priority listing on such programs as the 303.d list or the NYS Unified Watershed Assessment, but are also determined by the existence of a Watershed Management Plan. The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan, currently under development, is the result of the regulatory requirements. Such requirements make it unlikely to obtain funding for improvement or remediation of water bodies without a management plan. The basis for the implementation of TMDL, SWAP or environmental management plans is water quality information. It is also the basis for the evaluation of how well these programs are working. If the future of environmental regulation is going to be based on Water Quality Criteria, the need for a sound, long term monitoring program is even more evident. ' See TOGS 111 NYS Water Qualitv Criteria � 6 1� Monitoring and Evaluation The watershed management plan should include permanent, and regular monitoring to ascertain both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of implemented watershed plans. Progress should be reported and results of monitoring should help guide decisions about continued implementation. In the Ithaca area there are several organizations conducting sampling and monitoring: Permit testing: The Lake Source Cooling, LSC, project, Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facilty, Ithaca Water Plant Bolton Point Research: USGS (Lake and Streams; discharge, sediments, pesticides, fish) Cornell U: Streams: Pete Loucks team (Streams, comprehensive coverage) Lake: Dave Allee (Lake proposals, comprehensive coverage) Bob Johnson (Macrophytes) Pete Marks (Land use) Susan Packard (Ornithology) Lars Rudstam (Fish) Hobart & William Smith Colleges John Halfman (Zebra mussels) Syracuse U. Henry Mullins (Lake sediments) Monitoring: DEC- Rotating Intensive Basin Studies, RIBS, program Intermunicipal Organization: Proposed monitoring program under consideration 7 Objectives Water quality monitoring is a critical component of the Watershed Management Process. The three main objectives of water quality monitoring are: 1. Determine compliance with reaulations and designated uses What are the designated uses of Cayuga Lake and its tributaries: safe drinking water, fisheries, and recreational? Defining the designated uses of a waterbody is within the scope of the watershed management plan. This definition is critical given its impact on the potential impairments, because existing uses may not be removed. Water Quality Standards regulation requires than existing uses shall have been attained [40 CFR 131.3(e)]. 2. If not in compliance. what are the sources of maior loadinas? Typically, upstream/downstream-monitoring approaches will indicate which reaches of a stream contribute the most pollutant. Changes in water quality between two points are used to determine where pollution originates. In lakes, monitoring surface water inputs into the lake will indicate which watersheds are contributing most, and monitoring within those watersheds will indicate which sections of the watershed are responsible for the loadings. The role of groundwater should also be evaluated, since some lakes receive subsurface inputs directly from groundwater. In those cases, groundwater inputs need to be monitored and understood. Lakes also could discharge water into groundwater. The recharge from the lake could pollute the groundwater. 3. How well the Best Manaaement Practices (BMPs), or other implementation measures. are workina to brina the water bodv back into compliance. avoid dearadation. or broaden desianated uses? Where water quality criteria are not met, stakeholders must develop watershed management plans that include BMPs designed to improve water quality. Monitoring is required to determine which BMPs are actually effective in improving water quality and to assess their degree of effectiveness. This monitoring will require a long-term commitment to monitoring and review of the designated uses of Cayuga Lake and tributaries. The alternative is not knowing if implemented BMPs are actually working as intended to improve water quality. Without this information on BMP effectiveness, time and money may be wasted with little or no benefit to the water body. 0 Water Quality ParameterS2 Guidelines for degraded water duality designation: Waters are classified as degraded if any of the following conditions are met: 1) Waters listed in NYDEC, Priority Waterbodies List as stressed or impaired for aquatic life support (fishing, fish reproduction, fish survival). 2) Dissolved oxygen measurements violate criteria in >15% of observations. 3) Two or more parameters (exclusive of dissolved oxygen) violate criteria in more than15 percent of observations. 4) Degraded water quality is extended downstream to the point where drainage area of a reach is doubled by inflow from non -degraded tributaries or land area. Water qualitv criteria: Value ranges indicate degraded water quality: Temperature: >25 C. Justification: This criteria is used as part of the NY DEC water quality assessment program. EPA (1976,1986) criteria are more complex and they are computed as a change from background. Dissolved oxygen: <5 mg/I Justification: This criteria is used as part of the NY DEC water quality assessment program. This criteria was also identified by EPA (1976) for support of fish populations. pH (field) or pH (laboratory): <6.5 and >8.5 Justification: This criteria is used as part of the NY DEC water quality assessment program. EPA criteria (1976, 1986) are similar: 6.5 to 9 for freshwaters. Total ammonia, NH3+NH4: >.02 mg/I (as un-ionized ammonia NH3) for freshwater aquatic life. Justification: EPA (1976,1986) and DEC use this criteria but it requires calculation from the NH3+NH4 concentrations reported in sampling data. A chemical equilibrium exists between un-ionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized ammonia (NH4) that varies depending on temperature and pH. A spreadsheet (NH3FRESH.WK1) is available the Washington State Department of Ecology's Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program (http://www.wa.gov/ecology/pwspread.html) that calculates freshwater un-ionized and total ammonia criteria from temperature and pH from the formulas in the EPA 1986. Nitrate, NO2/NO3: >10 mg /I nitrate nitrogen (N). Justification: Although nitrate nitrogen at the criteria level is not toxic to aquatic life, this level indicates nitrogen input from human sources such as sewage, wastewater, and animal feedlots. We 2 This section is based on the Hydroecology & Fish Biology webpagewww.dnr.cornell.edu/hvdro2 �i include this parameter as an indicator of altered water quality since it is frequently measured in monitoring programs. EPA (1976, 1986) recommends this criteria for domestic water supply. Total Phosphorus: >0.1 mg/I for flowing waters and >0.05 mg/I for lentic waters. Justification: EPA (1976, 1986) specifies these levels for prevention of eutrophication and development of nuisance plant growth. Dissolved Solids: >500 mg/I Justification: This criteria is used as part of the NY DEC Water quality assessment program. Total Residual Chlorine: >0.1 mg/I Justification: EPA (1976) specifies this criteria as an average 4-day level for protection of aquatic life, and EPA (1986) modifies it only slightly (>.11 mg/1). Fecal coliform: >200 log mean per 100 ml water sample Justification: EPA (1976) specifies this criteria for safe bathing conditions, but levels this high indicate warmblooded animal excretion effects. We use this criteria as an indicator of agricultural animal influence on water quality. References (Water Qualitv Parameters): New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1994. Biennial report - rotating _ intensive basin studies, water quality assessment program 1991-1992. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and '- Assessment, Albany, New York. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [known as the Red Book] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001. Washington, DC [known as the Gold Book] 10 APPENDIX 1 Watershed Approach According to the most recent national water quality inventory, nearly 40 percent of surveyed waters in the US remain too polluted for fishing, swimming and other uses. The leading causes of impairment found in the survey include silt, sewage, disease -causing bacteria, fertilizer, toxic metals, oil and grease (Browner C 1996, httD://www.er)a.00v/OWOW/watershed/framework.htmi) The basic element of the watershed approach is the multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional partnership. Supporting them is a high priority for EPA's national water program. Guiding_ Principles EPA supports watershed approaches that aim to prevent pollution, achieve and sustain environmental improvements and meet other goals important to the community. The watershed approach should be based on the following guiding principles. Partnerships -- Stakeholder involvement; Those people most affected by management decisions are involved throughout and shape key decisions. Geographic Focus -- Activities are directed within specific geographic areas, defined by the watershed as a hydrologic unit. Although, other factors such as political boundaries and existing partnership program areas are often considered into decisions about geographic management units. Sound Management Techniques based on Strong Science and Data -- Collectively, watershed stakeholders employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an iterative decision making process. This includes: vii. assessment and characterization; viii. goal setting and identification of environmental objectives; ix. identification of priority problems; x., development of specific management options and action plans; A. implementation; and xii. evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans. Stakeholder Involvement The Watershed Program of the City of Ithaca has involved the area stakeholders. The Waste Water Treatment upgrade involved Dryden, Lansing (Cayuga Hights Waste Water Plant) and the City of Ithaca. The Six Mile Creek restoration project involves a wide -base partnership that includes USGS, USDA, the Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Organization (10), Tompkins County Water Resources Council, Cornell University, the Caroline Watershed Committtee, Town of Ithaca, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, the Natural Areas Commission and the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network. 11 Geographic Management Units The Cayuga Lake Watershed GIS database development is being coordinated by the 10 in cooperation with the rest of stakeholders mentioned above. The Six Mile Creek GIS database is being developed by the City's Water & Sewer Division and the Planning Department. Coordinated Management Activities The watershed planning and management is being coordinated by the Cayuga Lake 10. The 10 has recently endorsed Lake -wide based projects that include: water quality standards, hydrology, bio-assessment, sensitive lands analysis and other watershed indicators that reflect Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act goals: 1. Assessment and Characterization of Aa_ uatic Resources. Problems. and their Sources The proposed monitoring programs also include: ❖ An inventory of existing information on resources (ground water, sources of drinking water, habitat, wetlands and riparian acreage) ❖ A water quality sampling program to update existing information, fill gaps and detect trends. ❖ Reference conditions for biological monitoring programs to provide baseline data for water quality assessments and development of biological and nutrient criteria. ❖ Standardized data collection and GIS compatible databases 2�Goal Setting The first objective of the Cayuga Lake 10 is the development of a Watershed Management Plan, to establish water quality standards and to identify the designated uses of Cayuga Lake. The Water quality standards also include chemical, physical and biological criteria to characterize and protect the uses and an antidegradation policy to preserve the uses and water improvements attained in the waters of their watersheds. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is an opportunity to "nest" the Cayuga Lake _._ Watershed Management Plan programs and priorities into a wider context. The Clean Water Act funds, both grants and loans, should be applied to the development and implementation of watershed plans. 12 The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan The Cayuga Lake watershed partnership is developing a management plan to: ❖ Establish environmental objectives that are consistent with all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, including water quality standards and drinking water maximum contamination levels and health advisories. The environmental objectives should reflect the needs and concerns of the watershed stakeholders and thus may include objectives unrelated to EPA programs. ❖ Identify environmental indicators to monitor the attainment of the environmental objectives (In 1996 the EPA published Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States EPA 841-R-96-002.) ❖ Identify specific implementation actions, including voluntary, mandatory, and educational efforts, that will attain and maintain the goals. lmDlementation The Cayuga Lake Management Plan, through the proper and established channels, supports: ❖ Watershed approaches to water quality permitting, nonpoint source pollution control, i habitat protection and other water resource protection and restoration activities using Total Maximum Daily Load analyses. ❖ Tailoring the Clean Water Act 319 nonpoint source management program to respond to watershed needs and ground water connections. ❖ Direct activities in the State Wetland Conservation Plan toward reducing wetland impacts from land and water -based activities. ❖ Integrate federal, state and/or local wetland permit programs with individual watershed plans that contain adequate wetland protection provisions. ❖ Promoting the establishment of mitigation banks by providing funding for bank sponsors, identifying and prioritizing potential bank sites, and providing appropriate direction. ❖ Using the watershed approach to target overall source water protection areas and approved Wellhead Protection Program as high priority for various federal and state programs. ❖ Directing federal and state activities toward protection of high priority ground water (e.g., wellhead protection areas or other areas designated under endorsed Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program). 13 ❖ Developing or using approved programs under primacy for Phase I/IIN National Primacy Drinking Water Regulations for granting monitoring waivers under Public Water System Supervision program. ❖ As authorized, monitoring, verifying implementation, and, when necessary, enforce management actions. Monitoring and Evaluation The watershed management plan should include permanent, regular monitoring to ascertain both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of implemented watershed plans. Progress should be reported and results of monitoring used to help guide decisions about continued implementation. 14 Monthly sampling, several depths through the isocline, for Phosphorus, Ammonia, pH, Temperature, DO, turbidity, Chlorophyll alpha, and conductivity. Bioassessment: Cooperative program with Dr. Bain, Cornell U. Watershed Monitoring program to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) for Cayuga Lake, Phosphorus and sediment loading modeling (Partnership with Center for the Environment, Dr. Allee) Geographic Information System database for the developent of Source Water Asssessment program, Water resources planning - GIS based (Pertership with Cornell Environmental Engineering Department, Dr. Loucks) Partnership Members: USDA, USGS, DEC, DOH, Cornell University, TCWRC, Tompkins County Soil & Water Conservation Service Intermunicipal Organization,' 10, 10-Technical Committee Stakeholders participation program: TCWRC, TCWRC-Technical Committee, ' Caroline Watershed Committee, Cayuga Lake Watershed Network Participation on the Cayuga Lake management plan though the 10, 10-Technical Committee Six Mile Creek restoration program Streambank stabilization Riparian corridor evaluation and restoration ' 15 Cayuga Lake and the IAWWTF effluent The Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project, LSC, has brought attention to the amount of Phosphorus in Cayuga Lake. The main public concern was the impact of a perceived increase in phosphorus loading to Cayuga Lake. This increase could have caused algae -blooms and fish -kills. The public perception didn't work against the IAWWTF efforts in negotiating a successful first -stage NYS Bond Act grant proposal during 1998. During Cornell's public outreach efforts, it was stated that the IAWWTF Effluent was the largest source of Phosphorous to Cayuga Lake. Because of the research and monitoring conducted by the IAWWTF staff, this pre- conceived notion has been changed: The IAWWTF effluent is the main point -source contribution of Phosphorus to Cayuga Lake, but not necessarily the largest. The following table indicates the phosphorus load allocation to Southern Cayuga Lake: Source Phosphorous Load [mg/L] IAWWTF 36 Fall Creek 20 Cayuga Inlet 12 Cayuga Heights Plant 6 Urban Storm water Runoff ? NPS ? Other ? The expected phosphorus load from Urban Storm water runoff and other non -point sources is significant (1999 U.S. Geological Circular 1225--The Quality of Our Nation's Waters --Nutrients and Pesticides). The following table illustrates the expected contribution of Phosphorus to Cayuga Lake (Jarrell, 1999, TMDLs, Getting Started with ... YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387). The load allocations of Non -point Sources can be estimated from the watershed -reach land -use dominance: EXPECTANCY OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD BY LAND USE Forestry 20 micrograms per liter [ug/L] Agriculture 50 ug/L Urban 70 ug/L These data have been presented to the public and elected officials (Cornell Watershed Event 1999, A Citizen Forum - the hydrology and dynamics of Southern Cayuga Lake, Intermunicipal Cayuga Lake Watershed Tour, Tompkins County Water Resources Council, The Cayuga Lake Watershed Network Newsletter, Ithaca High School Seminars). M The sampling of Cayuga Lake has also helped to improve the public's perception of the state of the lake. During October-1999 samples were collected, and tested for total phosphorus at the IAWWTF-IWP environmental laboratories. The results indicated that the phosphorus concentrations are well below the recommended water quality standards, i.e., 20 micrograms per Liter (DEC 1998). Cayuga Lake South End. The Total Phosphorous loads are indicated. Photograph courtesy of Bob Pfeiff. The DEC expects the IAWWTF to accomplish a phosphorus reduction of 60%, i.e. from 0.6 to 0.2 mg/L. This reduction will yield a 12 Lb/day daily load to Cayuga Lake, the same as the Inlet's [P] load. Fair-weather samplers Unfortunately, we have been sampling only when the weather is fair. It seems than no sampling has been done during storm events, when most of the non -point source pollution occurs. A better understanding of storm events is required to assess non -point loadings to Cayuga Lake. 17 U.S. Geological Circular 1225--The Quality of Our Nation's Waters --Nutrients and Pesticides Point sources are regulated Laws place limits on the types and amounts of contaminants released to water. Legislation has resulted in reductions in industrial sources and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants. Legislation prevents and limits contaminants from entering water systems. Nonpoint sources contribute more contaminants than point sources It is more difficult to develop solutions for nonpoint sources, which are vastly more widespread and difficult to identify and quantify than point sources. For example, it is estimated that about 90 percent of nitrogen and 75 percent of phosphorus originates from nonpoint sources; the remaining percentages are from point sources. The atmosphere commonly is overlooked as a source of nutrient and pesticide contamination. Yet, more than 3 million tons of nitrogen are deposited in the United States each year from the atmosphere. The nitrogen is derived either naturally from chemical reactions or from the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline. Local contributions also come from evaporative losses of nutrients in the vicinity of open- air manure lagoons. The highest deposition rates of nitrogen (greater than 2 tons per square mile) occur in a broad band from the Upper Midwest through the Northeast. Assessment of the occurrence of nutrients and pesticides in water resources requires recognition of complicated interconnections among surface water and ground water, atmospheric contributions, natural landscape features, human activities, and aquatic health. The vulnerability of surface water and ground water to degradation depends on a combination of natural landscape features, such as geology, topography, and soils; climate and atmospheric contributions; and human activities related to different land uses and land -management practices. 18 /W atershad proP eds City of Ithaca Environmental Laboratories and Water & Sewer Division Roxanna Johnston & Jose Lozano Six Mile Creek Streambank Stabilization, Bond Act Monies The original NYS Clean Air - Clean Water proposal, a comprehensive watershed management plan for Six Mile Creek, received funding exclusively for the implementation of streambank stabilization. Three critical areas are being targeted for streambank stabilization in an effort to decrease sediment loading to the City of Ithaca silt dam, the Water Treatment Plant, and utimately to Cayuga Lake. The project is being implemented with the cooperation of the Town of Caroline, and private land owners. The City of Ithaca received $175,000 for this project. Six Mile Creek Riparian Forest Development This project was originally encompassed in the Six Mile Creek Watershed Management proposal. The Riparian Forest Development is being developed through a collaborative partnership with the Town of Caroline, the Ithaca and the Skaneateles Cooperative Extension Offices, private landowners, the City of Ithaca Planning Deprtment, Cornell University researchers and the Finger Lakes Land Trust. The goal is to improve water quality and decrease silt loading to the lake. Grants are being sought. CftE, IRAS We are setting a testing node for end -users, serving as the pilot study, of a comprehensive water resources modeling program - IRAS. It will have the ability to answer'what if questions pertaining the land use, as well as water resource designated 1 uses, quality; and quantity. Gaging Station, Six Mile Creek Flows and sediment loads are measured at German Cross Rd. in a cooperative effort with the USGS. Nutrients have also been monitored. This information is vital in the Six Mile Creek watershed management planning and remediation. This baseline information 19 directly benefits the Ithaca Water Plant and the IAWWTF by providing information related to non -point sources loadings. The Water and Sewer Division provided the funding and the Environmental Laboratories of the City of Ithaca perform the analyses. USGS catalogs and publishes the information and performs some monitoring on top of our regular sampling. EPA, Information Collection Rule The Ithaca Water Plant is one of 30 water treatment facilities nationwide participating in this project, coordinated by the EPA. Two times each month, for the period of one year, we are collecting samples of the Ithaca Water Plant raw water for analysis including: total coliforms, E. coli, crypto, giardia, pH, temperature, turbidity, total organic carbon, alkalinity, Absortion at 254 nm, bromide, and ammonia. This serves as valuable monitoring data on Six Mile Creek non -point source loadings to Cayuga Lake. Reservoir Sediment Loading The Water Treatment Plant has over two years of data comparing raw water sediments in the raw water line with suspended sediments at the 60' dam. This increases our understanding of sediment loading to the Water Plant and the overflow to the Lake. Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Upgrade The IAWWTF discharges into Cayuga Lake. It is located in the Great Lakes Basin (Oswego -Oneida Watershed). The IAWWTF is, as'a consequence, regulated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Phosphorus is regulated as the limiting nutrient in the Great Lakes Basin. The following proposal was prepared and submitted by Larry Fabroni. It is incuded here for completeness. This proposal was granted funding, in large part, because it was a multijurisdictional project, based on a watershed approach. Through this Clean Air - Clean Water NYS Bond Act grant, the IAWWTF will remove 60 % of the phosphorus that currently is discharged into Cayuga Lake, improve the collection system and contribute to protect Cayuga Lake by helping to improve the performance of the Cayuga Heights Waste Water Plant, by treating part of their waste water during peak flows. It will also contribute to reduce human -origin fecal coliform count at Cayuga Lake. 20 Defining a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) and the Hydrological, Ecological and Environmental Conditions of Watersheds Undergoing Socio-Economic Changes Affecting Land and Water Use. Investigators: • Daniel P. Loucks, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University • Mark B. Bain, Associate Professor, Natural Resources, Cornell University • Rolf J. Pendall, Assistant Professor, City & Regional Planning, Cornell University • Tammo S. Steenhuis, Professor, Agriculture and Biological Engineering, Cornell University • Jose Lozano, Director, Environmental Laboratories, City of Ithaca, Ithaca, NY Project Period: 1 October 1999 to 30 September•2002 Project Cost: 150,000 per year Project Summary: The objective of this proposal is to conduct a detailed diagnostic study of Land Use, Hydrology, Limnology and Bioassessment of the Charles River (Massachusetts), the Cayuga Lake Watershed (New York), and the Pawcatuck Watershed (Rhode Island and Connecticut) watersheds in order to establish Source Water Assessment Programs and Total Maximum Daily Loads. An emphasis is placed on phosphorus and sediment loading in Cayuga Lake for TMDL development, since the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) has placed Cayuga Lake on the Water Bodies Priority List indicating the need to study those parameters. Data will be compiled from existing sources (EPA,USGS, Tompkins County, City of Ithaca, Bolton Point, Lake Source Cooling Project) and/or collected for one year. I 1 21 Physical, ecological and social models for an integrated system approach to address implementation of TMDLs. Partnership members: See appendix Project Period: Three years Project Cost: $800,000.00 Project Summary: The integrated systems approach analyzes how policy information is best assimilated ' into the community. We assume that physical, ecological, and social components of a watershed are related to each other systemically. Given that physical components such as phosphorus are key to understanding future TMDL policy, our initial research interest will characterize the lake, tributaries and littoral zone using hydrological, transport, temperature and bio-assessment models. The present project analyzes: ❖ The transport and spatial variability of phosphorus, sediment and other physical parameters affecting water quality using bio-assessment ❖ The role of integrated biophysical models in reducing watershed knowledge gaps in complex social networks. Citizens and institutions exposed to integrated data about water quality will show higher levels of knowledge and concern, regardless of differences due to social network position. ❖ How persistent knowledge gaps are reduced by using collaborative and participatory processes. ❖ How reducing knowledge gaps creates greater success in the process of establishing TMDLs, and - ❖ How an understanding of social networks contributes to better evaluation of standards for setting TMDLs. 22 APPENDIX: Partnership Members: Dr.Allee has' been studying the institutional processes surrounding Cayuga Lake since leading the Cornell environmental impact studies multi -disciplinary team for a proposed atomic power station in the late 1960's. As an institutional economist he has made contributions to the evolution of water policy, teaches the water policy seminar in Civil and Environmental Engineering, is a member of the Natural Resources Graduate Field, and is active in collaboration between Cornell Cooperative Extension and the several state agencies on water quality policy educational programming. Dr. Skaley has until recently served as the principal environmental planner for Tompkins County and also served for eleven years on the Water Resources Board of the Finger Lakes -Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA) which he chaired for two years. FL-LOWPA is a unique group of technical personnel from 25 upstate counties which receive state funds for research, implementation and education on their watersheds using locally defined needs but in accordance with practices approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Through these affiliations, Skaley has worked extensively with local government agencies and citizen groups to plan watershed events, coordinate conferences and implement multi -party agreements. Currently, he is serving on a public participation committee which includes representation from municipalities around Cayuga Lake. This committee is charged with assuring that details regarding development of the management plan receive the necessary public review. ' Dr. Wagenet has broad experience in both the physical science and social science aspects of water quality. Currently, she is the coordinator of the Watershed Program in the Cornell Center for the Environment. This program facilitates research and outreach on watershed science and management emphasizing collaboration among physical, biological and social science faculty and academic staff at the University. Wagenet's own research focuses on the processes by which technical, environmental information is effectively transmitted to lay audiences. In addition, she serves on the Technical Committee for the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan and is an adjunct ' member of the Technical Committee for the Tompkins County (New York) Water Resources Council. Dr. Nelson Hairston, Dept. of Ecology and Systematics, currently chairs the technical review committee for the Lake Source Cooling Project which includes oversight for the monitoring requirements to meet NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation permit requirements. These data will be used extensively in the physical science component of this study. Dr. Loucks, Prof. Civil and Environmental Engineering will make available the use of his data and modeling effort on stream loading and water quality given changes in land use conditions. The model integrates land use, soil percolation and runoff factors with hydrodynamics of stream velocity and carrying capacity. Work has been funded under a previous NSF/EPA grant. Dr. Loucks and his team evaluated three of the four major tributaries entering the headwaters of Cayuga Lake 23 Mr. William Kappel, physical sciences section chief in the Ithaca subdistrict office of USGS, will lead work under contract to collect hydrodynamic data using an acoustic Doppler current profiler to enhance resolution of data necessary to calibrate the physical lake model. Bolton Point Water Plant. The water plant is governed by a municipal board and takes its water from Cayuga Lake. Bolton Point will provide data on water quality samples dating from 1986 on each of the major tributaries. Dr. Jose Lozano, Director, City of Ithaca Environmental Laboratories. Dr. Lozano will contribute additional data on loadings from the wastewater treatment plant and will also use county GIS data to characterize the major urban and suburban influences in the watershed which may contribute loadings to the lake. He is also actively involved with the county Water Resources Council, the Intermunicipal Organization Technical Committee and the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network which includes, municipalities, businesses and citizens concerned about maintaining the lake resource. 24 The investment in staff -hours has been dedicated mainly to watershed education and grant preparation, only a minimal part has been committed to actual sampling and testing of lake and stream samples for watershed assessment. It is estimated that 15 % to 20% of Roxanna Johnston and Jose Lozano's time has been allocated to watershed related activities. Since Ms. Johnston works most of her week at the Ithaca Water Plant, only 4 hours per week are allocated to Watershed related activities. The future workload is expected to remain at about the same level, or increase by —10% if the present budget is approved. The cost of these allocations is analyzed below: Roxanna Johnston: $10.55 per hour X 4 hours/week= $44.20/week Jose Lozano: $19.48 per hour 8 hours/week= $156.00/week The staff cost per'year:.$10,306.00 Sampling and Testing Costs: During the year, 70 samples have been analyzed for total -Phosphorus (t-P). The cost per t-P sample is —3.00 dollars In addition, 30 samples have been analyzed for coliforms, at around $8.00 per sample. Sampling and testing cost per year: $450.00 During 1999, the IAWWTF and the Water & Sewer Division purchased a field-testing instrument (HydroLab) to simultaneously analyze Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Conductivity, Total Dissolved Solids, Temperature, and Ammonia. The cost, $7,500.00, was divided equally between the IAWWTF and the Water & Sewer Division. The cost of reagents and supplies to operate, calibrate, and maintain this multi -testing instrument was—$1,500.00 during 1998-1999. Equipment and Supplies 'per year.-, $5,250. 0.0 TOTAL COST PER YEAR: $16,006.40 The Bond Act Proposal, approved during 1998 for the Streambank Restoration at Six Mile Creek, brought in $170,000.00 dollars to the watershed program. 25 Roxanna L. Johnston 1125 Glenwood Hgts. Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 Home: (607) 273-0282 E-mail: johnstor@clarityconnect.com Education: 1999: COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS. Watershed course, equivalent of 32 contact hours for continuing education. Water Treatment Plant Operator Course IA — License anticipated late 1999. TOMPKINS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DRYDEN, NY. Water Treatment Plant Operator Course IIA - License received. 1997: BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY. Course in ACCESS 97 for Windows. 1992-1996: OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OR. Coursework towards a Master's degree in Botany and Plant Pathology. Co -Major Professors: Jayne Belnap and Bruce McCune Related Coursework: Environmental Plant Physiology, Arid Land Plant Physiology, Plant Biochemistry, Plant Community Ecology, Rangeland Ecology, Microbial Ecology, Methods of Soil Ecology, Aquatic Botany, Plant Taxonomy, Arid Land Plants, Agrostology, Bryology, Cryptobiotic Crusts, Rangeland Improvement and Restoration, Statistics, Community Structure and Analysis. 1988-1992: MISSOURI SOUTHERN STATE COLLEGE, JOPLIN, MO. B.S. Biology; Full Academic Scholarship Related Coursework: General Ecology, Economic Botany, Plant Taxonomy, General Botany, General Zoology, General Physiology, Genetics, Microbiology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry. Employment: 1998-Present: WATER QUALITY ANALYST, Water and Sewer Department, City of Ithaca, NY. Quality Control Officer for National Environmental Laboratory Approval Program for Environmental Laboratories of the City of Ithaca. Continuing performance of lab technician duties at drinking water and wastewater plants. Watershed work expanded. Grant writing, development of collaborative relationships, and refinement of watershed management plan are some duties. Sit on several local watershed committees, successful application for New York State Bond Act Monies achieved for streambank stabilization efforts. 1997: LAB TECHNICIAN, Water and Sewer Department, City of Ithaca, NY. Performed monthly water/wastewater analyses for regulation compliance. Tests include: Total suspended solids, Volatiles, Presence/absence total coliforms/E. Coli, Settlable solids, Phosporus, Nitrtogen, Heterotrophic plate counts, pH, Turbidity, Chlorine, etc. Work was split between the water plant lab and the wastewater plant lab. Created the water plant's web page. Assisted in gearing up for watershed based management by working with GIS software. Assisted in optimizing process controls by developing ACCESS databases. 1996: BOTANIST, Bureau of Land Management, Salem, OR Performed vegetation surveys recording special habitats/features, slope, aspect, vegetation, mosses, liverworts, fungi, and lichens. Prepared written reports and made recommendations based on presence/absence of sensitive species and/or noxious weeds. 26 1992-1995: TEACHING ASSISTANT, Biology Dept., Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Course: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS and GENERAL ECOLOGY Assisted instructor in leading students through the process of grant writing and presentation of grant proposals for environmental projects. Assisted instructor in lectures, field trips, and examinations. Course: GENERAL. BIOLOGY series for pre -professional students. Prepared and gave lectures, teaching aids, materials, and exams for labs. Topics covered during a one year series were: Systematics, Botany, Zoology, Ecology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Physiology, Development, and Genetics. 1993: LAB TECHNICIAN, Soil Microbial Biomass Service, Botany and Plant Pathology Dept., Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Soil sample preparation and analysis for bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes. Instructed new employees in methods, particularly protozoa enumeration. Assisted in mycorrhizal mat mapping. Presentations: Presentations made on City of Ithaca's watershed efforts to two Public Forum tours of the Six Mile Creek watershed, 1998-1999, University of Cornell's Watershed Conference 1999 Intermunicipal Organization's Watershed Tour, 1999, and Ithaca High School, 1999. Presentations made to build support for Bond Act application to Tompkins County Water Resources Council, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, and City of Ithaca Six Mile Creek Committee (now Natural Areas Commission). Summer, 1998. Johnston, R.J. and J. Belnap. 1995. Restoration of Soil Food Web Structure with Implications for Native Bunchgrass Restoration. Presented at the Native Plant Society of Oregon Symposium, Corvallis, OR. Johnston, R.J., E.R. Ingham, J. Belnap. 1995. Restoration of Soil Food Web Structure in Semi - Arid Systems. Presented at the Society for Ecological Restoration, Seattle, WA. Johnston, R.J. and E.R. Ingham. 1995. Response of Soil Food Web Organisms to Litter Layer Manipulations. Presented at the Soil Ecology Society National Conference, Fort Collins, CO. Johnston, R.J. and J. Belnap. 1996. Changes ofsoil biota along a grazing disturbance gradient. Presented at Desert Tortoise Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. Publications: Johnston, R.J. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. USDA Soil Quality Institute Information Publication. Johnston, R.J. and J. Belnap. 1997. Potential for Influencing Native Bunchgrass Restoration by Manipulating Soil Biota. Native Plant Society of Oregon Proceedings. Honors: 1996: On the spot award of $500 for performance exceeding expectations from the Salem District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. 1995: Fourth place award for poster presentation at Soil Ecology Society National Conference. 1992: Twelve month stipend and tuition waiver in form of a teaching assistantship from Oregon State University, granted based on academics. 1991: Selection and financial assistance for Oxford study program, based on academics. 1990: Selection for Oklahoma State University Research Experiene for Undergraduates, based on academics. 27 1988: Honors College Scholarship. Full tuition waiver for undergraduate career. Selection based on academics. Affiliations: City of Ithaca liaison to Town of Caroline Watershed Committee. Ex-officio member of City of Ithaca Natural Areas Commission and Tompkins County Water Resources Council technical committee. Co-chair of Membership committee for Cayuga Lake Watershed Network Member of Nature Conservancy and American Museum of Natural History 28 RESUME JOSE L. LOZANO 331 Ithaca Rd., Spencer, NY 14883 (607) 589-4479 ill 13(cbcornell.edu October 1999 Education Ph.D., Cornell University,1991, Plant Physiology, Ecology and Genetics. Master in Sciences, 1988, Soil, Water and Atmospheric Sciences. Bachelors Degree in Science, 1978, Biology. Professional Experience Jose L. Lozano is the Director of the Environmental Laboratories, City of Ithaca, New York. The Environmental Laboratories hold dual certification for drinking water and waste water analysis, with professional licenses from the NYS-DOH ELAP, NELAP, EPA, and the USGS. In 1998, he received the Water Environment Federation national award of environmental testing excellence. Negotiating Environmental Agreements training at MIT -Harvard was obtained during 1997. The current R&D projects at the Environmental Labs include the development of the Watershed Management Program for the City's drinking water and waste water systems, the enhancement of anaerobic digestion by increasing biomass digestibility, in cooperation with Cornell University the reduction of soluble nutrients availability in farm waste using sequential batch reactors, and the development of methods to estimate the Biological Oxygen Demand within a few hours The Bond Act proposal "Six Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan" was granted funding during 1998. Jose serves in the DEC Regional Strategy Meetings of Non -point Source Pollution, and the technical committees of the Water Resources Council and the Intermunicipal Organization. He served as the Chairman of the Issues Committee of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, and is a member of the Six Mile Creek Stakeholders group. He has organized, with Roxanna Johnston, two annual Public Forums -"Water In - Water Out" in cooperation with the Cayuga Nature Center and the Cooperative Extension Service, and participated in several watershed symposia. The most recent ones have been the 1999 Cornell Watershed Event, the Intermunicipal Organization Watershed Bus Tour, and the "City of Ithaca Water System" presentation at Hollister Hall, Cornell University. 29 �J Employment: June 1997 to date: Director of Environmental Laboratories, City of Ithaca, Department of Public Works, City of Ithaca, Ithaca, NY. March 1993 to June 1997: Laboratory Director, Environmental Laboratory, Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility, Ithaca, NY, June 1991 to August 1992: Plant Physiologist, Seed Physiology Laboratory Director, Flower Seed Group, Geo. J. Ball Inc. 1989 to January 1991: Scientist, Boyce Thompson Institutefor Plant Research at Cornell University. 1985 to Spring 1990: Graduate Fellow at Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University. 1978 - 1985: Coordinator of the Experimental Biology Area, Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences, National University of Mexico. Memberships & Affiliations: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Water Works Association New York Academy of Sciences New York Water Environment Association Water Environment Federation Inter Municipal Organization -Technical Committee Tompkins County Water Resources Council -Technical Committee Six Mile Creek Stakeholders Group 30 Publications Lozano J L, Wettlaufer S H& Leopold A C (1988) Polyamine titres cosegregate with high seed survival in corn. Plant Phys. 86(S):105. Lozano,J L & Leopold A C (1988) Lower DNA stability for short lived maize embryos. Plant Phys. 86(S):105. Lozano J L & Leopold A C (1988) The physiology and genetics of seed aging. In: CIMMYT (1988) Recent advances in conservation and utilization of genetic resources. Proceedings of the Global Maize Germplasm Bank. Mexico D.F. ' Lozano J L, Wettlaufer S H & Leopold A C (1989) Polyamine content related to seed storage performance in Zea mays. J. Exp. Bot. 40:1337-1340. i1 J Lozano J L (1989) Genetic and physiological aspects of storage performance in Zea mays seeds. M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853. Lozano J L & Mayer A M (1990) Water relations and oxygen uptake by two lines of corn differing in storage performance. Israel J. Bot. 39:347-354. Lozano J L (1991) Loss of Maize (Zea maiz L.) seed quality in storage. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853. 31 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project Location: City of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Town of Dryden and the Town and Village of Lansing, New York Lead Agency: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Region 7 — Cortland Office 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, New York 13045-1090 Contact: John Merriman (607) 753-3095 Project Sponsors Contact: City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Dryden Town of Lansing Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights Gerry Hook, P.E. (607) 655-8161 DEIS Prepared By: The Chazen Companies North Country Office 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Contact: Stuart F. Mesinger, AICP (518) 812-0513 DEIS Accepted: DEIS Comments Due: DEIS Public Hearing: Consultants: The Chazen Companies 110 Glen Street Glen Falls, NY 12804 Environmental Consultant Contact: Stuart F. Mesinger, AICP (518) 812-0513 Stearns & Wheler, LLC One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, New York 13035 Engineering Consultant Contact: Mr. Gerry Hook, P.E. (315) 655-8161 Greenhouse Consultants 40 Exchange Place, 13th Floor New York, NY 10005 Cultural Resources Investigation Contact: Barry Greenhouse/Will Roberts (212) 514-9520 Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council 121 East Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Transportation Studies Contact: Fernando de Aragon, P.E. (607) 274-5570 a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Article 8 and implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617. The DEIS presents an evaluation of the potentially significant adverse impacts of constructing new sewer lines in the Town of Lansing, a sewer transmission main in the Town of Lansing and the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights, and two sewer diversions in the Village of Cayuga Heights. The DEIS also evaluates the impacts of potential future sewer lines in the Town of Lansing. Finally, the DEIS evaluates the potential impacts of growth induced in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and the Village of Lansing as a result of the proposed project, as well as from sewers that may be constructed at some time in the future. The DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements and mandates of the SEQRA Regulations at 6 NYCRR Section 617.9(b). II. Coordination under SEQRA On xxx (date), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) declared its intent to serve as the Lead Agency for this project. Notice of the DEC's intent to serve as Lead Agency was circulated to interested and involved agencies by letter dated xxx (date). No objections were raised with respect to the DEC's serving as Lead Agency, and on xxx (date) the DEC declared itself Lead Agency for the SEQRA review. DEC prepared a draft Scoping Document setting forth the issues to be addressed in the DEIS. On September 6, 2001 a public meeting was held at which comments on the draft Scoping Document were received. From xxx (date) to xxx (date) DEC also accepted written comments on the draft Scoping Document. On June 4, 2002 the DEC adopted a final Scoping Document for the project. This DEIS was prepared in accordance with the final Scoping Document. III. Description of Proposed Project The proposed project involves the construction of approximately 26 linear miles of collector sewers (both gravity and vacuum sewers) in the Town of Lansing, as well as the construction of three pump stations to convey sewage from topographic low points and 21 and 24-inch gravity transmission pipes li to convey the sewage to the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCHWTP). The project further involves interconnection of the VCHWTP service area and the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (IAWWTP) service area to allow for the diversion of 1.33 million gallons per day (mgd) (over the 20-year planning period) of sewage from the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP To utilize the existing permitted capacity at the IAWWTP. The Project also involves expanding the IAWWTP service area in the Town of Dryden, although no new sewers are proposed in Dryden at this time. Finally, the project involves the allocation of additional sewer capacity in the Village of Lansing and the allocation of sewer capacity in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. IV. Joint Sewer Agreement The project sponsors propose to undertake the action under the auspices of a Joint Sewer Agreement. Under the draft Joint Sewer Agreement, the sponsoring municipalities agree to jointly own and operate the IAWWTP and the VCHWTP. The agreement also spells out how sewer service may be expanded in the future and how sewage treatment capacity will be allocated among the municipalities. V. Sewer Benefit District Prior to the construction of sewers within the Town of Lansing Service Area, there will need to be formed a sewer benefit district. The formation of this district will be subject to a permissive referendum. The Sewer Benefit District will likely follow the boundaries of the Town of Lansing Service Area, although it may not do so exactly. The creation of the Sewer Benefit District will allow users to be assessed for their fare share of construction, operation and maintenance costs. The formation of this district is not currently proposed and it is not a part of this DEIS. VI. Project Cost The total project cost is estimated at $11,210,000. $3,523,000 has been committed to the project through bonds made available from the New York State Clean Water Revolving Fund. An additional $2,040,000 in Bond Act funds has been requested. If fully funded, the balance of $5,647,000 will be the responsibility of the project sponsor and those benefiting from the project. VII. Need for the Project The project is needed in order to eliminate ground and surface water pollution currently caused by inadequate on -site sewage disposal systems. iii The proposed project will eliminate a number of sewage discharges and provide a higher level of sewage treatment than presently occurs within the area proposed to be serviced. More specifically, the proposed benefits are as follows. ■ Currently, inadequate on -site septic systems are in use within the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. For example, the Tompkins j County Health department has identified limitations or inadequacies with systems in the Ladoga park area, the mall near the intersection of Atwater Road and Route 34, the tavern at the corner of Drake Road and Route 34 and at the Lansing Central School District. �+ Elimination of these inadequate systems will improve ground and surface water quality. ■ Currently, . individual SPDES discharge permits are held by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional facilities that fall within the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. These include the Lansing Centrral Fire Station, Colonial Cleaners, Hunter Apartments, Golden Garter Restaurant, Lakewatch Inn, Division for Youth facilities, Cargill, Inc., Woodsedge Apartments, Transonic Systems and UPS. Elimination of the individual SPDES permits will improve the water quality of Cayuga Lake because the systems for which these permits have been issued do not incorporate phosphorous removal. ■ The project will meet the need for additional sewage capacity in the Town and Village of Lansing. ■ The project will occur in an area that is already partially developed, thus promoting infill rather than conversion of open space and } agricultural lands. - The sizing of mains, pump stations and other facilities will provide the opportunity for future expansion of sewer service within the Town of Lansing Planning Area. ■ The provision of sewers within the Town of Lansing Service Area and, potentially in the future, the Town of Lansing Planning Area, will allow for controlled growth in the Town of Lansing in accordance with that community's planning policies. ■ The project will eliminate SPDES permit flow exceedances at the VCHWTP. iv ' By incorporating the Town of Dryden within the proposed future sewer service area, sewer service may in the future be extended to the Town of Dryden. VIII. Alternatives Analysis Alternatives to the proposed action were thoroughly analyzed during the " planning phases of the project. The following summarizes the alternatives considered. No Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative none of the benefits described in j Section IV above would be realized. This alternative was rejected 4-- because it does not meet the communities pressing wastewater needs and would result in continued pollution of Cayuga Lake. Wastewater Collection System Alternatives Alternative systems of wastewater collection such as the use of vacuum sewers for the entire Town of Lansing Service Area were considered. This alternative was rejected because the majority of the Town of Lansing Service Area has slopes suitable for the use of gravity sewers and because the operation and maintenance costs of vacuum sewers is (f higher than for gravity sewers. However, vacuum sewers are proposed in a few parts of the Town of Lansing Service Area where gravity flows are not feasible. Small -diameter variable slope sewers (SDVS) were also considered. These sewers have the advantage of lower construction costs. However, they require the use of full-size septic tanks and are more expensive than gravity sewers. For these reasons, this alternative was also rejected. Wastewater Treatment in Localized SubAreas The construction of small package plants or neighborhood subsurface cluster systems was considered but determined not to be appropriate for the long-term expectations of the Town of Lansing as articulated in the Town's planning and engineering studies. This alternative would also not result in as high a level of treatment of wastewater as would the proposed project. V I Conventional Local Wastewater Treatment Plant r This alternative would involve the construction of a treatment plant owned and operated by the Town of Lansing. This alternative was rejected because it would not provide for a regional wastewater solution, a major goal of the NYSDEC in its review of this project. Regional Wastewater Treatment Solution The development of a regional wastewater treatment solution was the alternative preferred by the NYSDEC because it would result in fewer discharges to Cayuga Lake and would consolidate sewage treatment operations, resulting in fewer individual wastewater treatment plants and systems at which problems could occur. Four regional alternatives were evaluated, as follows. r Treatment at the VCHWTP Treatment at the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant was considered but rejected because, although it is technically feasible to expand this plant to meet all of the projected flows within the Town of Lansing Planning Area, it is not as cost-effective to do so. Recognition of this fact led to consideration of the Partial Diversion Alternative. Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion This alternative includes the conveyance of sewage from the Town of Lansing Service Area and the Village of Lansing to the VCHWTP. To r offset additional flow from the Town of Lansing Service Area and to reduce monthly average and 'peak hourly sewage flows to within current design capacities, partial diversion of raw sewage flow from areas now served by the VCHWTP (which includes portions of the ( Towns of Lansing, Dryden and Ithaca and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing) to the IAWWTP is provided. This is the preferred alternative that is the subject of this DEIS. Cayuga Heights Complete Diversion t - This alternative includes decommissioning of the VCHWTP. Sewage from the existing Cayuga Heights Service Area as well as from the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area would be conveyed to an expanded IAWWTP. This alternative was rejected because it was more - costly than the Partial Diversion Alternative. r Vi Cayuga Heights Primary Treatment This alternative includes continued use of the VCHWTP as a primary treatment facility for sewage flows from the existing Cayuga Heights Service Area as well as the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. Primary treated wastewater effluent would be discharged to the IAWWTP for further treatment and subsequent discharge to Cayuga Lake. This alternative would require expansion of the IAWWTP and was rejected because it is more costly than the Partial Diversion i Alternative. Alternative Pipe Sizing The proposedtransmission main from the Village of Lansing Service Area to the VCHWTP is the minimum size necessary to meet the project f needs. Further, as the primary conveyance system for the Town of Lansing a smaller diameter gravity transmission main could not efficiently be replaced or supplemented in the future without significant cost and duplicated construction impacts. Alternative Transmission Main Routes An alternative transmission main route would avoid the Twin Glens Unique Natural Area. This alternative would utilize force a force main sewer along nearby streets. This alternative would result in less intrusion in the Glen, but would have higher construction and operating costs. A decision on the use of this route will be made as part of the EIS process. IX. Description of Potential Direct Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section summarizes the potential impacts identified for the proposed project. For each impact, mitigation measure(s) have been proposed that will avoid or minimize these potential impacts. !, Soils, Geology, Topography and Groundwater • The proposed project will result in the potential for erosion and sedimentation from construction on steep slopes. To mitigate this impact, erosion control plans will be required. ' • The project is likely to result in the need for blasting to construct sewer lines in areas of shallow bedrock. To mitigate this impact, a r, L- V11 blasting plan will be required. This plan will include both safety y and notification provisions. I The proposed sewer transmission main will come in close proximity to a residential groundwater supply source. To mitigate the potential impact of well contamination from sewer line failure, the ? transmission main will be double -sleeved within 100 feet of this source. • The project is likely to result in the need for dewatering of f_ construction trenches. To mitigate this impact, dewatering plans including the use of detention basins will be required. • The project is likely to generate dust during construction. To mitigate this impact, a dust control plan will be prepared. Flora and Fauna • Project construction will occur in several designated Unique Natural Areas (UNAs). Mitigation measures include the development of soil erosion control plans, careful planning of sewer 4r, routes to minimize site disturbance and the delineation of construction boundaries to avoid off -site impacts. Additionally, the use of trenchless construction techniques should be considered where adverse impacts to UNAs cannot be avoided or otherwise mitigated. 4 Water Resources __ • The Project will result in the need to cross streams in a number of 4 locations. Potential impacts include erosion and sedimentation and habitat destruction. A number of measures related to construction procedures have been identified to mitigate impacts to streams. Wetlands • No construction in either DEC or Federally mapped wetlands (or buffer areas) is proposed. Climate and Air Quality 1 • The project may temporarily generate dust during construction. This impact will be mitigated through the creation of a dust control plan. r vin Visual Resources • The project is not anticipated to have any impact on visual resources. r , Odors • Odors could occur at the pump stations if they are not properly designed and operated. The DEIS contains mitigation measures related to the proper design and operation of pump stations. Noise t • Noise could be generated from pump station emergency generators during periods of power outage. To mitigate this impact, it is suggested that generators be enclosed. Cultural Resources A Stage 1A study has been conducted for the proposed project. This study concluded that previously undisturbed areas have a moderate to high potential for containing cultural resources. To mitigate this impact, a Stage 1B survey involving shovel tests will be conducted for all previously undisturbed areas in which construction is j proposed. Land Use and Zoning • The project will have no direct impacts to community land use or zoning. Transportation • Project construction has the potential to result in disruption of traffic patterns. To mitigate this impact, the DEIS contains a ;- number of mitigation measures, including the preparation of a 1 Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan. Demographics • The project will not have any direct impacts on demographic characteristics. ix Fiscal Conditions 4 • The project will be partially funded through grants from State Bond Act monies. The balance of the project will be funded by the involved municipalities. Those benefiting from the project are likely to be assessed their fair share of the project costs through the creation of a Sewer Benefit District. The affected municipalities may use low interest loans from the State Clean Water revolving Fund for their share. School Districts • The project will have no direct impacts on local school districts. Community Services • The project will have no direct impact on community services. - X. Growth Inducing Impacts The DEIS contains an extensive assessment of potential growth inducing impacts to the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Village of Lansing that i could result from introducing sewer service into the DEIS Study Area. This assessment includes both sewers associated with the proposed project and s potential sewers that could be constructed at some time in the future. The ' assessment was conducted by preparing three scenarios for future growth. Scenario 1 is the baseline condition, in which it is assumed that sewers will not result in additional growth within the DEIS Study Area. Scenario 2 assumes that a modest amount of additional growth will occur within the DEIS Study Area as a result of the new sewers, and Scenario 3 assumes that Ia high amount of additional growth will occur in the DEIS Study Area as a result of the new sewers. The impacts of Scenarios 2 and 3 were compared to Scenario 1. The results of this analysis are summarized as follows. Municipal Fiscal Conditions • Inasmuch as the revenue from new development rarely pays for the complete costs of municipal services provided to such development, then to the extent that more growth occurs as a result of the project, negative fiscal impacts to the municipalities could occur. However, the magnitude of such impacts within the context of the - overall budget of the municipalities (a few percent in all cases) is not considered significant. X School Districts • Induced growth associated with the project will result in minimal impacts to local school systems. As with municipal budgets, the overall fiscal impacts of growth are generally negative; however within the context of the overall budgets of the affected districts, the impact is minimal. Community Services f • Induced growth associated with the project will have no adverse impact on the provision of local fire protection, emergency or recreation services. To the extent that there may be a shortfall in existing public safety staff levels in Tompkins County, this shortfall L would be exacerbated by growth induced by the project. However, this is a county -wide impact, and it is likely that growth would C; simply relocate from one part of the county to the other. Therefore, the impact is not considered significant. Transportation • Induced growth associated with the project will have minimal t_ impact. on local traffic and transportation patterns. This is largely because the magnitude of induced growth is not particularly large, and because local zoning encourages low density development, } - which has the affect of dispersing growth, and therefore traffic _ impact. Existing traffic problems will continue to occur, unless faddressed by affected municipalities, and will be somewhat exacerbated by future growth, with or without the project. Employment • Induced growth associated with the project would result in increased employment. This is a positive impact associated with the project. Land Use I Induced growth associated with the project would result in the ` conversion of open space lands to developed lands. If such conversion were to favor agricultural lands as opposed to other types of undeveloped lands, a significant percentage of such lands could be converted. However, relatively little of the active ! - agricultural land in the affected municipalities is located within the 1 Xi DEIS Study Area, and so even if future development were to favor ti. such lands, the regional impact would be small. The DEIS suggests that the affected municipalities consider ways to protect agricultural land through their local planning and zoning processes. To the extent that the affected municipalities encourage relatively low development density, more land conversion would result than under higher density zoning schemes. The DEIS suggests that the affected municipalities review their land use plans and policies with respect to this issue. However, it is important to note that local plans encourage the patterns and densities of growth analyzed in this DEIS. Regional Impacts • Regional impacts from this project primarily relate to the potential rfor population and commercial growth patterns to be altered. For example, commercial development in the City of Ithaca could choose to relocate to the DEIS Study Area in order to service this new development. Such impacts are difficult, if not impossible to quantify, because they depend on a myriad of personal and i individual business judgments. It is reasonable to conclude however that the levels of population ' growth resulting from the accelerated growth scenarios are not of 't the scale likely to result in significant new commercial _ development. Commercial development generally follows population ( growth; the levels of population growth projected in this DEIS are - not likely to result in significant relocation of commercial development. M. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The following unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified. • The project will result in unavoidable habitat loss along construction rights -of -way and at pump station locations. Such loss will occur in narrow corridors in several Unique Natural Areas. • The project will result in the disruption of traffic patterns during the construction period. • The project will result in noise from blasting during construction. Xll Ir ? The project will result in dust and odors during construction. • The project may result in erosion and sedimentation during construction. • The project may have impacts to cultural resources, if any such resources are identified during the Stage 1B study. The project may induce growth in the DEIS Study Area. To the extent that such growth occurs as a result of the project, there will be an increase in people and associated impacts to school systems, transportation systems and community facilities and services. To the extent that there may be a county -wide shortfall in public safety protection, such shortfall may be exacerbated. However, as noted in Section 6.4.3.2, to the extent that such a shortfall may be said to exist, ;- it is a county -wide issue and not one attributable to the proposed i project. t MI. List of Involved Agencies and their Authority for the Project A number of agencies have regulatory review over the project. Federal Agencies The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) will have jurisdiction over construction activities in for sewer line crossings of certain streams. This may involve notification under a Nationwide Permit for certain of the crossings. State Agencies The following state agencies have regulatory approval over the project: 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The NYSDEC is the Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of this project. NYSDEC must approve the plans and specifications for the proposed sewers and pump stations. NYSDEC will issue a water quality certification for stream crossing activities in Federally regulated waters. NYSDEC will be responsible for ensuring compliance with a general stormwater permit for the project. NYSDEC will administer Bond Act funds and enter into contracts with each municipality for administration of the Bond Act funds. 2. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The NYSDOT must approve plans for work within State rights -of -way. NYSDOT's primary review is the review of plans for the maintenance of traffic safety during construction. 3. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC). The NYSEFC is providing partial financing to the project in the form of low interest loans. The NYSEFC is responsible for the approval of a number of administrative actions, including the review of plans and specifications, in connection with its funding. 4. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag and Markets). Ag and Markets requires a discussion of the impact of the action on agriculture. A Notice of Intent will be filed at the time of formation of the sewer districts. This DEIS analyzes the impacts of the action on agriculture consistent with the requirements of the Agriculture and i Markets Law. County Agencies The following County agencies have regulatory approval over the project: i. Tompkins County Department of Public Works (TCDPW). The TCDPW is responsible for approving construction within county -owned rights -of -way. As with the NYSDOT, the TCDPW's primary concern is the maintenance and safety of traffic flow. ii. Tompkins County Department of Health (TCDOH). The TCDOH is responsible for review and approval of the construction plans for the project. Local Agencies The following municipalities have formed a coalition in which -- capacity they are sponsors of the project: Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing, Town of Lansing, Town of Dryden, L Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca. As signatories to the Joint Sewer Agreement, all are responsible for undertaking this 1-- action. Additionally the Public Works departments of the Xlv coalition members must approve activities within the rights -of - way of town or village owned roads. XIII. Schedule The anticipated completion date for the SEQR review and approval process is Summer of 2002, after which the final design and bid process will begin. Construction is proposed to begin in the fall of 2002 and be completed in 2004. XV TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Need 1 1.2 Benefits 3 1.3 DEIS Study Area Location 4 1.3.1 Town of Lansing Service Area 5 1.3.2 Town of Lansing Planning Area 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7 2.1 Existing Municipal Wastewater Facilities 7 2.1.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants 7 2.1.2 Municipal Wastewater Collection Facilities 9 2.2 Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater Collection Facilities 10 2.2.1 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loadings 10 2.2.2 Town of Lansing Service Area Proposed Improvements 12 2.3 Project Costs 19 2.3.1 Total Estimated Project Costs 19 Xvi 2.4 Joint Sewer Agreement 20 2.5 Permits and Approvals 20 2.5.1 Federal Agencies 20 2.5.2 State Agencies 20 2.5.3 County Agencies 21 2.5.4 Local Agencies 21 2.6 Sewer Benefit District 22 2.7 Project Schedule 23 2.8 Future Construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area 23 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 24 3.1 Topography 24 3.2 Geology 24 3.3 Soils 26 3.4 Water Resources 27 3.5 Flora and Fauna 30 3.6 Wetlands 30 3.7 Unique Natural Areas 32 3.8 Climate and Air Resources 38 3.9 Odors 38 3.10 Cultural Resources 38 3.11 Land Use and Zoning 40 Xvll 3.11.1 Town of Dryden 41 3.11.2 Town of Lansing 42 3.11.3 Village of Lansing 45 3.11.4 Agricultural Districts 46 3.12 Transportation 47 3.13 Demographics 48 3.14 Fiscal Conditions 50 3.15 School Districts 51 3.16 Community Services 53 3.16.1 Fire Protection 53 3.16.2 Police Protection 55 3.16.3 Emergency Services 56 3.16.4 Recreation 56 3.16.5 Utilities 58 4.0 DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PROPOSED SEWERS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING SERVICE AREA 60 4.1 Topography 60 4.1.1 Impacts 60 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures 60 4.2 Geology 61 4.2.1 Impacts 61 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures 61 4.3 Soils 63 4.3.1 Impacts 63 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures 64 4.4 Flora and Fauna 64 4.4.1 Impacts 64 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures 66 4.5 Water Resources 68 4.5.1 Impacts 68 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures 68 4.6 Wetlands 72 4.6.1 Impacts 72 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures 72 4.7 Unique Natural Areas 72 4.7.1 Impacts 72 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures 73 4.8 Climate and Air Resources 73 4.8.1 Impacts 73 xix 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures 73 4.9 Visual Resources 73 4.9.1 Impacts 73 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures 73 4.10 Odors 73 4.10.1 Impacts 73 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures 74 4.11 Noise 74 4.11.1 Impacts 74 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures 74 4.12 Cultural Resources 74 4.12.1 Impacts 74 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures 75 4.13 Land Use and Zoning 75 4.13.1 Impacts 75 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures 75 4.14 Transportation 75 4.14.1 Impacts 75 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures 76 4.15 Demographics 78 4.15.1 Impacts 78 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures 78 xx 4.16 Fiscal Conditions 78 4.16.1 Impacts 78 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures 78 4.17 School Districts 78 4.17.1 Impacts 78 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures 78 4.18 Community Services 79 4.18.1 Impacts 79 4.18.2 Mitigation Measures 79 5.0 DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM POTENTIAL SEWERS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING AREA 80 5.1 Topography 80 5.1.1 Impacts 80 5.1.2 Mitigation Measures 80 5.2 Geology 80 5.2.1 Impacts 80 5.2.2 Mitigation Measures 80 5.3 Soils 81 5.3.1 Impacts 81 5.3.2 Mitigation Measures 81 5.4 Flora and Fauna 81 5.4.1 Impacts 81 01.41 5.4.1 Mitigation Measures 82 5.5 Water Resources 82 5.5.1 Impacts 82 5.5.2 Mitigation Measures 82 5.6 Wetlands 83 5.6.1 Impacts 83 5.6.2 Mitigation Measures 83 5.7 Unique Natural Areas 85 5.7.1 Impacts 85 5.7.2 Mitigation Measures 85 5.8 Climate and Air Resources 86 5.8.1 Impacts 86 5.8.2 Mitigation Measures 86 5.9 Visual Resources 86 5.9.1 Impacts 86 5.9.2 Mitigation Measures 86 5.10 Odors 86 5.10.1 Impacts 86 5.10.2 Mitigation Measures 86 5.11 Noise 87 5.11.1 Impacts 87 5.11.2 Mitigation Measures 87 5.12 Cultural Resources 87 5.12.1 Impacts 87 5.12.2 Mitigation Measures 87 5.13 Land Use and Zoning 87 5.13.1 Impacts 87 5.13.2 Mitigation Measures 87 5.14 Transportation 88 5.14.1 Impacts 88 5.14.2 Mitigation Measures 88 5.15 Demographics 88 5.15.1 Impacts 88 5.15.2 Mitigation Measures 88 5.16 Fiscal Conditions 88 5.16.1 Impacts 88 5.16.2 Mitigation Measures 88 5.17 School Districts 89 5.17.1 Impacts 89 5.17.2 Mitigation Measures 89 5.18 Community Services 89 5.18.1 Impacts 89 5.18.2 Mitigation Measures 89 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 90 6.1 Purpose 90 6.2 Methodology 90 6.3 Results 95 6.3.1 Total Theoretical Build -out 95 6.3.2 Historical Growth Data 96 6.3.3 Projected Population 97 6.3.4 School District Projections 99 6.4 Impacts 102 6.4.1 Fiscal Conditions 102 6.4.2 School Districts 104 6.4.3 Community Services 106 6.4.3.1 Fire Protection 107 6.4.3.2 Police Protection 108 6.4.3.3 Emergency Services 110 6.4.3.4 Recreation 111 6.4.4 Transportation 112 6.4.5 Employment 116 6.4.6 Land Use 116 6.4.7 Regional Impacts 120 6.5 Mitigation 121 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 122 8.0 ALTERNATIVES 123 8.1 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 123 8.1.1 Wastewater Collection System Alternatives 123 8.1.2 Wastewater Treatment in Localized Subareas 124 8.1.3 Wastewater Discharge Alternatives 124 8.1.4 Conventional Local Wastewater Solutions 124 8.1.5 Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 124 8.1.6 Reduced Service Area 124 8.2 Detailed Regional Alternatives Considered 125 8.2.1 Treatment at the VCHWTP 125 8.2.2 Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion 125 8.2.3 Cayuga Heights Complete Diversion 125 8.2.4 Cayuga Heights Primary Treatment 125 8.3 Alternative Pipe Sizing 126 8.4 Alternative Transmission Line Routing 126 8.5 The No -Action Alternative 127 9.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRRVERSIBLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 128 L_ xxv I LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of VCHWTP Wastewater Flow and Loading Projections Table 2 Summary of IAWWTP Wastewater Flow and Loading Projections Table 3 Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Flow and Loading Projections Table 4 Cost Summary Table 5 Soil Series Summary Table 6 Prime Farmland at the Soil Series Level Table 7 NYSDEC Wetlands Table 8 Land Use Classifications for Study Area Municipalities Table 9 Town of Dryden Zoning Districts and Densities Table 10 Town of Lansing Zoning Districts and Densities Table 11 Village of Lansing Zoning Districts and Densities Table 12 Summary of Land Enrolled in Agricultural District 1 Within the DEIS Study Area Table 13 Population Trends 1980-2000 Table 14 Housing Unit Trends 1980-2000 Table 15 Year 2000 Average Household Size Table 16 Existing Fiscal Conditions in the Study Area Municipalities and School Districts Table 17 Historic Enrollment for the Lansing Central School District Table 18 Historic Enrollment for the Dryden Central School District Table 19 Historic Enrollment for the Ithaca City School District Table 20 Fire Departments Serving the DEIS Study Area Municipalities Table 21 New York State Police Officer Patrol Areas for the Freeville Substation Table 22 Acreage of Tompkins County Parks and Land Table 23 Development Scenario 1 Assumptions Table 24 Development Scenario 2 Assumptions Table 25 Development Scenario 3 Assumptions Table 26 Summary of Zoning Regulations Table 27 Town of Lansing Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build - out Table 28 Village of Lansing Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build -out Table 29 Town of Dryden Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build - out Table 30 Historical Growth Data 1990-2000 XXvl Table 31 Summary of Study Area Population and Dwelling Unit Increase By Municipality and Scenario Table 32 Summary of Study Area Commercial Development Projections By Municipality and Scenario Table 33 Summary of Study Area Commercial Growth Projections By Type of Development Table 34 Residential Population Increase Projections By Municipality and School District Table 35 Residential Population Increase Projections By School District Table 36 Public School Children Projections By School District Table 37 Commercial Projections By School District Table 38 Net Annual Fiscal Impact to Municipalities By Scenario Table 39 Comparison of Municipal Impacts By Scenario Table 40 Comparison of School Enrollment Impacts By Scenario Table 41 Net Annual Fiscal Impacts to School Districts Table 42 Projected Annual Fiscal Impact to School Districts Table 43 Comparison of Annual Fiscal Impacts to School Districts By Scenario Table 44 Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of Firefighting Vehicles and Personnel for the Town of Dryden Table 45 Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of Firefighting Vehicles and Personnel for the Town and Village of Lansing Table 46 Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of EMS Vehicles and Personnel for the Town of Dryden Table 47 Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of EMS Vehicles and Personnel for the Town and Village of Lansing Table 48 Summary of Projected Intersection Levels of Service Table 49 Projected Employment Generation Table 50 Summary of 2002 Major Land Use Classifications in the DEIS Study Area Table 51 Summary of Projected Land Conversion Acreage By Municipality and Scenario Table 52 Summary of Projected Land Conversion as a Percentage of Total Buildable and Total Vacant Land Table 53 Historic Land Conversion 1990-2000 Table 54 Summary of Projected Land Conversion as a Percentage of Total Study Area Agricultural Land XXvll LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 DEIS Study Area ' Figure 2 Town of Lansing Service Area Figure 3 Town of Lansing Planning Area Figure 4 Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities Figure 5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities i Figure 6 Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater Collection Facilities Figure 7A Proposed Klein Road Interceptor Figure 7B Proposed Remington Road Interceptor Figure 8 Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Wastewater Collection Facilities Figure 9 Topography - Figure 10 Depth to Bedrock Figure 11 Depth to Water Table Figure 12 Surficial Geology Figure 13 Soil Associations Figure 14 Water Resources i Figure 15 Floodplains Figure 16 Aquifers Figure 17 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wetlands Figure 18 Federal National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands C Figure 19 Unique Natural Areas L Figure 20 Town of Dryden Land Use Figure 21 Town of Dryden Zoning Figure 22 Town of Lansing Land Use Figure 23 Town of Lansing Zoning _ Figure 24 Village of Lansing Land Use Figure 25 i Village of Lansing Zoning Figure 26 Agricultural Districts Figure 27 Transportation Analysis Zones Figure 28 School Districts Figure 29 Parks and Recreation Facilities Figure 30 Topography and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 31 Minimum Depth to Bedrock and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 32 Minimum Depth to Water Table and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 33 Unique Natural Areas and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 34 Stream Crossings Within the Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Figure 35 Floodplains and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 36 NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 37 Federally Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers Figure 38 Topography and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers Figure 39 Minimum Depth to Bedrock and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers Figure 40 Minimum Depth to Water Table and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers Figure 41 Unique Natural Areas and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers Figure 42 Stream Crossings Within the Town of Lansing Planning Area Figure 43 Floodplains and Potential Town of Lansing Sewers Figure 44 NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers Figure 45 Federally Regulated Wetlands and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Wetlands Figure 46 Town of Lansing Buildable Areas By Zoning District Figure 47 Village of Lansing Buildable Areas By Zoning District Figure 48 Town of Dryden Buildable Areas By Zoning District Figure 49 Town of Lansing Buildable Areas By Transportation Analysis Zones Figure 50 Village of Lansing Buildable Areas By Transportation Analysis Zones Figure 51 Town of Dryden Buildable Areas By Transportation Analysis Zones Figure 52 Town of Lansing Buildable Areas By School Districts Figure 53 Village of Lansing Buildable Areas By School Districts Figure 54 Town of Dryden Buildable Areas By School Districts XX1X ' LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Draft Joint Sewer Agreement Appendix 2 Proposed Construction Schedule t Appendix 3 Soil Descriptions Appendix 4 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species i Correspondence Appendix 5 Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey f Appendix 6 i Transportation Analysis - Appendix 7 Fiscal Impact Worksheets Appendix 8 Agricultural Data Appendix 9 Aerial Photographs of Proposed Transmission Main - r I r in Relation to Unique Natural Areas 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need The Ithaca area's wastewater treatment needs are currently met by two regional wastewater treatment plants, many individual on -site septic systems, and small package plants. The Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCHWTP) is owned by the Village of Cayuga Heights. It serves the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, a portion of the Town of Ithaca, that portion of the Town of Lansing that is t sewered, and a relatively small portion of the Town of Dryden. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (IAWWTP) is jointly owned by the City of j Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden. It serves the City of Ithaca, the majority of the Town of Ithaca, and a small portion of the Town of Dryden. The unsewered majority of the Town of Lansing is served by on -site septic systems and small package plants. These systems do not provide as high a level of treatment as do municipal wastewater treatment plants, with the result that there is a higher potential for contamination of ground and surface waters. In 1997, the City of Ithaca (on behalf of the IAWWTP's partners), the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Town of Lansing submitted separate applications for various projects under the New York State Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act process. The IAWWTP partners sought funding for improvements that would ultimately reduce inflow and infiltration problems in their interceptor sewers and for wastewater treatment plant improvements that would increase plant capacity. The Village of Cayuga Heights sought funding to improve specific processing elements within the VCHWTP. The Town of Lansing sought funding to construct municipal sanitary sewer lines and a Town wastewater treatment plant. None of these applications were funded. Following the denial of the applications, the municipalities, in consultation with the NYSDEC, decided upon a regional wastewater treatment approach. A joint application between the Town of Lansing, the City of Ithaca and the f i Village of Cayuga Heights was submitted on June 3, 1998, to obtain funding for wastewater treatment and collection system improvements. The maximum amount of funding under the Bond Act is 85 percent of the eligible construction cost. Although full funding was not granted, partial funding was awarded. The municipalities believe a regional approach to wastewater treatment is the most effective approach. A regional approach funded by Bond Act monies DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 2 will enable some of the municipalities (specifically the Town of Lansing and, potentially in the future, the Village of Lansing) to avoid the construction and j start-up costs they would incur if they built new, separate wastewater treatment facilities. A regional solution will also reduce maintenance costs for each municipality and therefore reduce maintenance costs to each user. It t will allow the plants to be updated at minimum cost to the users as new pollution prevention technologies become available. Beyond the cost benefits, a regional approach results in a larger geographical area of pollution control methods, leading to a significant decrease in the pollutants being discharged into ground and surface water. To satisfy the conditions of the grant award, regional wastewater treatment solutions were evaluated by the Bond Act applicants and the Village of Lansing. The results of the evaluation are presented in the Unified Engineering Report Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Improvements Ithaca, Cayuga Heights, Dryden and Lansing, New York, August 1999, (the Unified Engineering Report) which was prepared by Stearns & Wheler, LLC and T.G. Miller, P.C. Of the various options presented in the document, the Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion Plan was selected as the most feasible plan, and it is this plan that is the subject of this DEIS. A second Bond Act joint application was submitted on August 17, 1999, to include additional improvements in the Town and Village of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights and the City of Ithaca. The cooperative effort embodied by this plan strives to provide municipal wastewater collection and f treatment to presently unsewered areas of the Town of Lansing, and E_ potentially in the future the Town of Dryden, while improving water quality in Cayuga Lake. A third Bond Act application was submitted by the Village of Cayuga Heights, the City and Town of Ithaca, the Town and Village of Lansing and the Town of Dryden on October 27, 2000. This application provided revisions to the second application to reflect additional elements deemed necessary to complete the Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion Plan as well as some independent projects. ' The Partial Diversion Plan, which is the subject of this DEIS, involves interconnecting the VCHWTP and IAWWTP facilities to divert 1.33 million gallons per day MGD from the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP, where treatment will be provided. This element will eliminate flow exceedances at the �- VCHWTP and provide additional capacity to treat flows from the Village of Lansing sewer district, which covers the entire Village. Additionally, ' approximately 26 miles of new sewer line are proposed in the Town of Lansing in order to provide new sewer service. This area is designated as the DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 3 Town of Lansing Service Area. The role of the VCHWTP will be to provide wastewater treatment to all of the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area, as well as a portion of the surrounding area which is already served by municipal sewers. Proposed facilities, primarily within the Town and Village of Lansing, will include extensive underground sewer lines and three pump stations. All collection and pumping facilities have been sized to accommodate potential new flows in the future from specific areas in the Town of Lansing that are outside the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. However, it is important to emphasize that there are no current plans to undertake an extension outside the Town of Lansing Service Area. If such an extension is proposed in the future, its environmental impacts will need to be evaluated once a specific extension is identified and proposed. 1.2 Benefits The common goal of the municipalities is to eliminate ground and surface water pollution currently caused by inadequate on -site sewage disposal systems. The proposed action will also eliminate residential, commercial, industrial and institutional point source discharges that are allowed under existing SPDES permits in the Town of Lansing Service Area. More specifically, the anticipated benefits are as follows: ■ Currently, inadequate on -site septic systems are in use within the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. For example, the Tompkins County Health department has identified limitations or inadequacies with systems in the Ladoga park area, the mall near the intersection of Atwater Road and Route 34, the tavern at the corner of Drake Road and Route 34 and at the Lansing Central School District. Elimination of these inadequate systems will improve ground and surface water quality. ■ Currently, individual SPDES discharge permits are held by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional facilities that fall within the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. These include the Lansing Central Fire Station, Colonial Cleaners, Hunter Apartments, Golden Garter Restaurant, Lakewatch Inn, Division for Youth facilities, Cargill, Inc., Woodsedge Apartments, Transonic Systems and UPS. Elimination of the individual SPDES permits will improve the water quality of Cayuga Lake because the systems for which these permits have been issued do not incorporate phosphorus removal. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 I 2'C e ,gyp -h "F'o S CA,/ oL4- /-) d /f 4 V systems for which these permits have been issued do not incorporate phosphorus removal. ■ The project will meet the need for additional sewage capacity in the Town and Village of Lansing. ■ The project will occur in an area that is already partially developed, thus promoting infill rather than conversion of open space and agricultural lands. ■ The sizing of mains, pump stations and other facilities will provide the opportunity for future expansion of sewer service within the Town of Lansing Planning Area. ■ The provision of sewers within the Town of Lansing Service Area and, potentially in the future, the Town of Lansing Planning Area, will allow for controlled growth in the Town of Lansing in accordance with that community's planning policies. ■ The project will eliminate SPDES permit flow exceedances at the VCHWTP. ■ By incorporating the Town of Dryden within the proposed future sewer service area, sewer service may in the future be extended to the Town of Dryden. 1.3 DEIS Study Area Location The current service areas for the IAWWTP and VCHWTP are shown in Figure 1A. The project sponsors propose to make the two plants' service areas, coterminous and to expand the service areas in certain locations. The l,,,,.,ti of +o�L!S Sta,Ay-Arca is ill--strated i Figure 1B, "DEIS Study Area," shows the locations on which this DEIS focuses. The portions of the Towns of Lansing and Dryden shown in Figure 1B are in the Study Area because the boundaries shown in Figure 1B are being considered as the new boundaries for the VHCWTP-IAWWTP service areas. The Study Area also includes all of the Village of Lansing, which is currently served by the VCHWTP. The Village of Lansing is included in the Study Area because its capacity at the VCHWTP currently is limited and the Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion Plan will make additional wastewater treatment capacity available to the entire Village of Lansing. A4so- ineluded in the Study Area is that per-tion of the N 11age- of Cayuga Heights through wl ieh +lie propo.Sed-t--a s? ,. on m, =, and diversiOR � �M rs .,,iii run-. Th + r V411 r r�.,t,,,,..., u, ight� s nat „hide l �rcfic—or—trio—rzritc i.� lu DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 67 because —the -entire-N411agc is already se e ea and adequately served by +>,c VC14W P,sothe projeetwill + lea ., to ddit; a development the V 11. The DEIS Study Area in the Town of Lansing has two components. The smaller component is the Town of Lansing Service Area, for which facilities are presently proposed to be constructed. The larger component, which surrounds the Town of Lansing Service Area, is the Town of Lansing Planning Area. No facilities are currently proposed to serve this Planning Area. The Town of Lansing has identified the Planning Area as the area into which sewers may someday be proposed after they are built in the Lansing Service Area. Facilities to serve the Town of Lansing Service Area have been sized to accommodate potential growth in the Planning Area. This EIS includes the Planning Area so that a comprehensive look may be taken at the potential for and impacts of additional sewer expansions over the next 20 years and beyond, and to determine what the boundaries should be for the VCHWTP-IAWWTP service areas. The sponsors propose to expand the service area for the Town of Dryden, part of which is currently served by the IAWWTP and another part by the VCHWTP. The proposed expansion would go beyond these service areas and the new boundaries are in the Study Area. However, no new sewers are currently proposed for the Town of Dryden, and unlike the Town of Lansing, the Town of Dryden has not prepared any conceptual plans for where sewers might go in the expanded service area. The Village of Cavuga Heights (as owner of the VCHWTP) and the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca (as two of the co -owners of the IAWWTP) are all, sponsors of the proiect and are included in the list of involved municipalities., it is imper-tant to note the exel sio of -The VillaLye of Cavus?a Heiahts and the City and Town of Ithaca are not included in 4--em the DEIS Study Area., however. The Village of Cavu;-a Heights is not included because the entire Villave is alreadv sewered and adequately served by the VCHWTP, so the proiect will not lead to additional development in the Village.. The City and Town of Ithaca both already have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for their jurisdictions and will not receive additional capacity through this project. The diversion project will enable the northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca that is currently served by the VCHWTP to be served by the IAWWTP. However, because the nNortheast portion of the Town of Ithaca is adequately served by the VCHWTP and is largely built out, the diversion project will not lead to additional development in the Town. The new proposed service area also includes small portions of the northwest. southwest and southeast corners of the Town of Ithaca. These three corners were not included in the original service area for the IAWWTP, but the entire Town of Ithaca, includinv- these DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 P 4 corners, is in a town -wide sewer benefit area and sewer extensions have, previously occurred in the northwest and southwest corners. The Town of Ithaca has sufficient capacity to serve the limited development potential of these corners, and the new proposed service area formally includes these small, areas as well. 1z the City and owjeif44y o tegether- with +1 Town of Pryden, they are therefere sponsors of tpr-ejeet R are ineluded withinthe list of invelved munieipaliti 1.3.1 Town of Lansing Service Area As described above, the portion of the Study Area within the Town of Lansing is divided into two components, the "Town of Lansing Service Area" and the "Town of Lansing Planning Area." The Town of Lansing Service Area is the area for which new collection sewers are proposed. The Town of Lansing Service Area includes the hamlet of South Lansing, the New York State Office of Children & Family Services pivision for Youth facilities, the Lansing Housing Authority, Woodsedge Apartments, the Myers Road neighborhood south of Salmon Creek, Ladoga Park, Lansing Central Schools, the Lansing Town Park, a portion of Kingdom Farm, Cargill, Inc., and Cayuga Crushed Stone. The boundaries of the service area reflect consideration of existing land use patterns; future anticipated zoning plans; future development; ecological concerns for Cayuga Lake, Salmon Creek and other tributary streams; the 1994 Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan; and the input of the Tompkins County Department of Health. The Town of Lansing Service Area is illustrated by Figure 2, "Town of Lansing Service Area". 1.3.2 Town of Lansing Planning Area The Town of Lansing Planning Area is the area within the Town of Lansing used to develop projected future wastewater flows for sizing certain facilities which may be prohibitively expensive to upgrade or expand in the future, such as large diameter trunk mains. Properties within the Town of Lansing Planning Area but outside of the Town of Lansing Service Area can be served by future collection sewers provided there is sufficient treatment plant capacity to handle a sewer extension to that area. No facilities are proposed for the Planning Area as part of this project. This EIS' looks at impacts from extending sewers into the Planning Area so that they can be considered together with the impacts from the Town of Lansing Service Area, but any service that may be proposed in the future for the Planning Area will need to undergo separate environmental review. The Town of Lansing Planning Area is illustrated by Figure 3, "Town of Lansing Planning Area". DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 18 4 Town of Lansing Transmission Svstem The transmission main consists of 21-inch and 24-inch diameter gravity sewer pipe. Collector sewers and pressure sewers combine at a manhole located at the intersection of Smugglers Path and Reach Run. The 21-inch diameter gravity transmission main follows a 0.3 percent grade south and passes through Eastlake and Sunpath Roads into the Village of Lansing. The transmission pipe is upsized to 24-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Burdick Hill Road. The increased carrying capacity of a 24-inch sewer will accommodate the balance of the Town of Lansing Planning Area not included in the Town of Lansing Service Area. The 24-inch sewer continues south along East Shore Drive to the intersection of Cayuga Heights Road and then follows an abandoned railroad grade through the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights. The Village of Lansing's existing 15-inch railroad interceptor sewer intersects the railroad grade below Twin Glens Road and terminates at the VCHWTP. It is proposed the two transmission mains interconnect allowing shared capacity with a 21-inch main installed parallel to the existing main. The 21-inch main would also terminate at the VCHWTP. Approximately 19,700 linear feet of large diameter transmission main will be constructed. Diversion of Cavuga Heights to IAWWTP The Village of Cayuga Heights and Ithaca Area collection systems serve adjacent neighborhoods and can easily be interconnected. The February 1998 completion of a 36-inch diameter transmission main in the City (identified as a need in 1989 to correct an overflow problem at the high school) will allow sewage from areas in the northeast to be conveyed and treated at the IAWWTP. The transmission system and comparatively low cost of system interconnections may allow individuals, communities and municipalities to capitalize on the treatment capacities of both the VCHWTP and IAWWTP. Table 31 lists the wastewater flows and loads that are projected to be treated at the VCHWTP and the flows and loads that are proposed to be diverted to the IAWWTP. The total flow diversion from Cayuga Heights is proposed to be0.7-4 0.89 MGDmgd on an average annual basis and 1.30 mgd on a maximum month basis. The VCHWTP and IAWWTP combined would accommodate the present and 20-year future wastewater treatment needs from the Town of Lansing Study Area, as DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 U well as the projected 20-year needs in the other municipalities who are participants in the project. Two diversions are proposed. Figure 7A illustrates the Mine Road project, Intereept?er- and Figure 7B illustrates Illustrates the Remington Road oroiect.InteFeepter. The proposedVAine Read by paff- t_;11 divert at least two spur-s „r the e.xi-sting V;11agee+ 11 tie ,s+,,.., to the4AAWA�mP. T►le ��-- �-Ga3''::ga HT_t, giveersion W ,-�^.. - .-c,41:'_4ec Kli? Read, Q&I hK R �t Upla` .n4 Read, l �..t e f _„ �^vik�vm-r TIanch-aw .7, Tr.,,. eic Plase d the southern end ofCayuga heights Read.Th b pass will eensist of approximately 380 feet f 12 inclh SDP. M P\T(; 20 feet of 12 in& DTP cawerr--$ n?---,hales,-ca met^ -'jig naanhgle with a 6 -- Bch p and ix eenneetions to the -existing -sewen— The Mine Road diversion will divert up to 0.35 MGD of flow from a portion of the existing Village of Cayuga Heights collection system to the IAWWTP. The diversion volume available for this element, is limited by the size of the service area. The bvpass can be effected with a minimal work effort to reconnect sewer lines that serve the "Old Village" area to the existing Mine Road sewer, which was the original service line for this area. The connection will require installation of approximately 400 lineal feet of 12" sewer line, six, manholes and a metering manhole. The Remington Road project will allow the diversion of approximately 1 MGD of flow, limited by the capacity of the existing sewer on Remington Road. The diversion will require construction of a diversion structure on the main trunk sewer, to the VCHWTP at the point it crosses Remington Road, installation of approximately 700 lineal feet of sewer pipe on Remington Road and construction of approximately 2,650 lineal feet of large sewer main on Lake Street. The proposed, pipe on Remington Road would replace aging existing piping• and complete the interconnection between existing Village of Cayuga Heights piping and existing sewers on Remington Road. The proposed sewer main on Lake Street would replace, an existing sewer pipe as well. No environmental analyses of eAh-er-the diversions are required because they both merely involve the replacement of existing pipes with larger pipes and the building of interconnections, all within existing roadways or disturbed rights of way. The existing rights -of -way are associated with existing sewers and are regularly mowed and/or maintained. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 20 TABLE 3 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOADING PROJECTIONS CAYUGA HEIGHTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Sewage Flow Annual average, mgd Maximum month, mgd Peak hourly, mgd BOD5 Annual average, mg/1 Annual average, lb/day Maximum month, lb/day Suspended Solids Annual average, mg/1 Annual average, lb/day Maximum month, lb/day Total Phosphorus Annual average, mg/l Annual average, lb/day Maximum month, lb/day 1.87 0.144 0.441 0.23 0.67 0.21 0.08 0.44 0.74 2.73 0.187 0.573 0.3 0.86 0.62 0.44 0.92 1.30 8.60 0.475 1.455 0.92 2.67 3.15 2.38 4.08 5.06 4tuir.e Cpyuga Heiglit Iiiit'aI' .• ° Desi" ' f 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 7 250 237 217 217 217 217 217 217 220 222 3,380 300 870 420 1,210 380 130 800 1,340 2,880 2,910 5,200 390 1,130 540 1,560 1,120 790 1,660 2,350 3,930 3,980 218 266 266 218 218 218 218 218 218 214 223 3,280 320 980 420 1,220 380 120 800 1,340 2,800 2,920 4,940 420 1,280 540 1,560 1,120 790 1,660 2,350 3,700 3,870 5.1 9.2 8.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.5 6.1 80 11 31 10 28 9 3 19 31 72 80 98 11 31 13 36 19 19 39 55 70 74 1) Source: "Wastewater Facilities Plan, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York," October 1998 (Final). 2> Flow diversion calculations based on offset of annual average BOD5 loading from proposed Town of Lansing sewer service area. 3) Flow diversion necessary to limit maximum month and peak hourly flows influent to the VCHWTP to 2 mgd and 5 mgd, respectively. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 21 2.3 Project Costs 2.3.1 Total Estimated Project Costs The total estimated project cost (planning, design and construction) for the projects necessary to provide and or extend sewer service in the Town and Village of Lansing is $11,210,000, as presented in Table 4. New York State Bond Act funding for the eligible costs of each of these projects has been applied for in fiscal years (FY) 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2001-2002. Only construction costs are eligible (fiscal, legal and engineering costs are not eligible for funding) with the maximum grant being 85 percent of the construction cost. As of October Alay 1, 2002, the total committed Bond Act funding for these projects is $4.203,000. $3,523, Additional Bond Act funding in the amount of $1.360,000$2,040,000 has been requested. If fully funded, the remaining amount to be locally funded is $5,647,000 as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Cost Summary South Lansing Area Collector Sewers - South Lansing Area $3,200,000 $0 $0 $3,200,000 Transmission - South Lansing Area $550,000 $370,000 $0 $180,000 Collector and Lateral Sewers - Myers $1,630,000 $1,080,000 $0 $550,000 Road Area Pump Stations $1,360,000 $900,000 $0 $460,000 Transmission to Cayuga Heights WWTF $2,350,000 $1,700,000 $0 $650,000 Diversion of Cayuga Heights Wastewater, $240,000 $153,000 $0 $87,000 to IAWWTF TOTALS $11,210,000 $4,203,000 $1,360,000 $5,647,000 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 PAPA 2.4 joint Sewer Agreements The project sponsors propose to facilitate this proiect provide je � wastewater treatment under h of through an Intermunicioal Wastewater A;?reement.a Joint SewerAgreement.- A draft copy of this agreement is found in Appendix 1. Under the draft joint 'Sew Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement, the sponsoring municipalities agree to coordinate rand svnchronize operations at Jointly ^, and ^ er^te the IAWWTP and the VCHWTP. The service areas for these two plants would be coterminous bi d '-it^ one ^ ^^ because flows would be diverted from the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP. The entire Town of Ithaca would be included in the service area. with flexibility to divert Northeast flows (including flows from the Villaae of Cavuaa Heights, which is in the Town of Ithaca) to the IAWWTP. The agreement also proposes a new service area that includes parts of the Towns of Lansing and Dryden that are currently not sewered and are not currently included in either plant's service area. The agreemen- ^1�e ep-blle „+ i,^,,, , be c.ipun4ed it t3ha future an - how sewage- treatment eap,aeit . be allel eeated am;m the munieipalit}es. Tait SPI) c oefffi-it-sfnr 1,^+1, fn,,;1;+;^s -,vill be »fie, ,as W--11_ CC for ieint-es;ensibilw�-for- eamelianee--4t'. --]K cPDES perms ono. The munieii3alities 1- ay,- 4pp1 e for- ,,.�,a iie�ii�its-and and joint Sewer A-�--Feem—t is order- to issue the:ver- The arrangements for IAWWTP treatment of diverted. flows, and for, VCHWTP treatment of flows from the Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing, will be dealt with through agreements among the affected municipalities. (INSERT PLANT TO PLANT LANGUAGE HERE.1 The Village of Cavuaa�iei,-hts currently receives sewage from the Town of Lansing and the Villaae*' Lansing through the istin;; Village of Cavuaa Heights collection system,Na,9 .well as throua a direct transmission main, directly into the VCHWTP. Se;�e from t Town and Village of Lansing is commingled with sewage from ire V' age of Cavuaa Heights and is subsequently treated and dischar e into Cavu;;a Lake. The Village of Cavug�a Heights charges the Tow and illaae of Lansing directly for the treatment, based on eauivalen usehold its. The Town and Village of Lansing are charged an "outsi ' user rate, whibh is a multiple of the "inside" user rate that is charged/ the Village of Catua Heights properties. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Revised for Internal Review 10/31/02 Delete everything in Section 2.4 Sewer Agreements after the second paragraph (ending with the words "among affected municipalities") and insert the following new text at that point: Flow Diversion Agreements The Town of Ithaca currently owns sufficient excess capacity at the IAWWTP to divert large amounts of flows out of the VCHWTP system and into the IAWWTP. These flows will come from the Northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. In addition, a very small amount of flow will be diverted from the Town of Dryden, which has sufficient capacity at the IAWWTP to accommodate the amount of flow it currently sends to the VCHWTP. Initially, the diverted flow will come from a fixed area of the VCHWTP collection system known as the "Old Village" that serves Village of Cayuga Heights properties. The flow from this area will be diverted through the proposed Mine Road connection. An additional amount of flow will be diverted through another proposed connection on Remington Road. Flows through this diversion will come from the Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, and the small Town of Dryden area. The amount of flow initially diverted through the Remington Road and Mine Road diversions to the IAWWTP will be equivalent limited -to the amount of flow that presently goes to the VCHWTP from the Northeast area of the Town of Ithaca and the small adjoining area in the Town of Dryden. Under the concept of equivalent flows set forth in the Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement, even though a large amount of the diverted flows may come from Village of Cayuga Heights properties, the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden will pay the IAWWTP for treatment of the diverted flows. In return, these Towns will no longer net -pay the VCHWTP for treatment of their wastewater (even though some will not be diverted and will receive treatment at the VCHWTP)_, sue -Instead, the Towns will pav the IAWWTP for IAWWTP treatment of an equivalent amount of their VCHWTP flows, as well as for IAWWTP treatment of their actual flowsAhe flew at the- T e ia�p If additional diversions are needed to keep the VCHWTP operating under its 2.0 MGD maximum month flow limit, the Remington Road diversion flow will be increased beyond the equivalent amount currently going to the VCHWTP from the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden. The increased flow would come from properties within the Village of Cayuga Heights. This additional flow from the Village of Cayuga Heights will be considered Town of Ithaca flows (since the Village is within the Town) and be charged to the Town of Ithaca by the IAWWTP. The Town of Ithaca would recover this expense from the Village if and when the diversion includes such additional flows diverted from the Village. All of these flows would be metered on a continuous basis and costs for treatment would be treated and charged to the Town according to the normal IAWWTP annual budget and billing process. The construction of the new diversion connections will be done by the municipalities in which they are located. For instance, the Village of Cayuga Heights would construct required infrastructure for the Kline Road and Remington Road diversions. The Town of Ithaca will construct the transmission main in Lake Street from the bottom of Remington Road to near the City of Ithaca line. Capital costs for this construction would be recovered through an agreement between the" Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Although it is anticipated that the diversions and reductions in infiltration and inflow will help keep the VCHWTP operating under 2.0 MGD throughout the 20-year planning period, additional peak flows may need to be diverted during emergency events. Additional peak flows would be diverted on an infrequent and short-term basis. As an example, if the operators at the VCHWTP are experiencing flows early in a month that would result in a monthly flow in excess of 2.0 MGD, they could contact the operators at the IAWWTP and arrange to adjust the flow through the Remington Road connection so that more flow is diverted until the end of the month or until infiltration and inflow receded. The incremental cost of the emergency diversion would be paid by the VCHWTP. Since the wastewater treatment plant operators will need to coordinate at various times when flows need to be diverted, a "plant to plant" agreement between the owners of the IAWWTP and VCHWTP will provide structure and guidance for how and when diversions happen and will detail the financial arrangements to compensate the IAWWTP. This agreement will provide for mutual aid, backup by the IAWWTP, and load sharing. An oversight board will provide annual review of flows, flow growth, and report on operation of the plant to plant agreement to the municipalities' Boards. Agreement between Village of Cavuga Heights and Town/VillaLre of Lansing The Village of Cayuga Heights currently receives sewage from the Town of Lansing and the Village of Lansing through the existing Village of Cayuga Heights collection system, as well as through a transmission main directly into the VCHWTP. Sewage from the Town and Village of Lansing is commingled with sewage from the Village of Cayuga Heights and is subsequently treated and discharged into Cayuga Lake. The Village of Cayuga Heights charges the Town and Village of Lansing directly for the treatment, based on equivalent household units. The Town and Village of Lansing are charged an "outside" user rate, which is a multiple of the "inside" user rate that is charged to the Village of Cayuga Heights properties. The terms of the proposed agreement between the Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing are basically the same as the existing agreements between these same parties. The Village of Cayuga Heights would continue to treat sewage from the Town and Village of Lansing at the VCHWTP and would continue to charge them at an "outside" user rate. As mentioned above, if additional capacity is needed at the VCHWTP beyond that freed up by the initial Mine Road and Remington Road diversions, additional flows can be diverted from the Village of Cayuga Heights into the IAWWTP system. The Town of Ithaca would recover the expense of treating this additional sewage by billing the Village of Cayuga Heights for the amount of sewage added to the diversion. In turn, the Village will recover that cost by adding it to the VCHWTP's annual operating budget. Therefore, the Town and Village of Lansing would indirectly pay for the treatment of the additional flows at the IAWWTP since the additional diversion will free up capacity for them at the VCHWTP. The Town and Village of Lansing will decide on the allocation of the available capacity between themselves. The Town and_ Village of Lansing will own and maintain sewer flow meters from which the Village of Cayuga Heights will collect data to determine the amount of infiltration and inflow contributed by those "outside" users. If the ratio of peak flows versus dry flows becomes disproportionate, the Village of Cayuga Heights will assess a surcharge to the relevant municipality's "outside" rate, to encourage reduction of unwanted inflow and infiltration. Finally, the agreement will have a provision for the parties to review and modify the terms and conditions on a 5-year basis. This will allow the parties to determine the best strategy for future capacity needs and other issues such as meter billing, infiltration issues and transmission maintenance. ■ The project will meet the need for additional sewage capacity in the Town and Village of Lansing. ■ The project will occur in an area that is already partially developed, thus P J promoting infill rather than conversion of open space and agricultural lands. ■ The sizing of mains, pump stations and other facilities will provide the opportunity for future expansion of sewer service within the Town of Lansing Planning Area. The provision of sewers within the Town of Lansing Service Area and, potentially in the future, the Town of Lansing Planning Area, will allow for controlled growth in the Town of Lansing in accordance with that community's planning policies. ■ The project will eliminate SPDES permit flow exceedances at the VCHWTP. ■ By incorporating the Town of Dryden within the proposed future sewer service area, sewer service may in the future be extended to the Town of Dryden. 1.3 DEIS Study Area Location The location of the DEIS Study Area is illustrated in Figure 1, "DEIS Study Area". The potions of the Towns of Lansing and Dryden shown in Figure 1 are in the Study Area because the boundaries shown in Figure 1 are being considered as the new boundaries for the VHCWTP-IAWWTP service area. The Study Area also includes all of the Village of Lansing, which is currently served by the VCHWTP. The Village of Lansing is included in the Study Area ' because its capacity at the VCHWTP currently is limited and the Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion Plan will make additional wastewater treatment capacity available to the entire Village of Lansing. Also included in the Study Area is that portion of the Village of Cayuga Heights through which the proposed transmission main and diversion mains will run. The rest of the Village of Cayuga Heights is not included because the entire Village is already sewered and adequately served by the VCHWTP, so the project will not lead to additional development in the Village. The DEIS Study Area in the Town of Lansing has two components. The smaller component is the Town of Lansing Service Area, for which facilities are presently proposed to be constructed. The larger component, which surrounds the Town of Lansing Service Area, is the Town of Lansing Planning Area. No DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 W1 facilities are currently proposed to serve this Planning Area. The Town of Lansing has identified the Planning Area as the area into which sewers may someday be proposed after they are built in the Lansing Service Area. Facilities to serve the Town of Lansing Service Area have been sized to accommodate potential growth in the Planning Area. This EIS includes the Planning Area so that a comprehensive look may be taken at the potential for and impacts of additional sewer expansions over the next 20 years and beyond, and to determine what the boundaries should be for the VCHWTP-IAWWTP service area. The sponsors propose to expand the service area for the Town of Dryden, part of which is currently served by the IAWWTP and another part by the VCHWTP. The proposed expansion would go beyond these service areas and the new boundaries are in the Study Area. However, no new sewers are ` currently proposed for the Town of Dryden, and unlike the Town of Lansing, the Town of Dryden has not prepared any conceptual plans for where sewers ' might go in the expanded service area. It is important to note the exclusion of the City and Town of Ithaca from the ` DEIS Study Area. The City and Town both already have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for their jurisdictions and will not receive additional capacity through this project. The diversion project will enable the northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca that is currently served by the VCHWTP to be served by the IAWWTP. However, because the northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca is adequately served by the VCHWTP and is largely built out, the diversion project will not lead to additional development in the Town. Because the City and Town jointly own the IAWWTP, together with the Town of Dryden, they are therefore sponsors of the project and are included within the list of involved municipalities. 1.3.1 Town of Lansing Service Area As described above, the portion of the Study Area within the Town of Lansing is divided into two components, the "Town of Lansing Service Area' and the "Town of Lansing Planning Area The Town of Lansing Service Area is the ' area for which new collection sewers are proposed. The Town of Lansing Service Area includes the hamlet of South Lansing, the New York State Division for Youth facilities, the Lansing Housing Authority, Woodsedge Apartments, the Myers Road neighborhood south of Salmon Creek, Ladoga Park, Lansing Central Schools, the Lansing Town Park, a portion of Kingdom Farm, Cargill, Inc., and Cayuga Crushed Stone. The boundaries of the service area reflect consideration of existing land use patterns; future anticipated zoning plans; future development; ecological concerns for Cayuga Lake, DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 6 Salmon Creek and other tributary streams; the 1994 Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan; and the input of the Tompkins County Department of FHealth. The Town of Lansing Service Area is illustrated by Figure 2, "Town of Lansing Service Area'. ' 1.3.2 Town of Lansing Planning Area The Town of Lansing Planning Area is the area within the Town of Lansing used to develop projected future wastewater flows for sizing certain facilities which may be prohibitively expensive to upgrade or expand in the future, such as large diameter trunk mains. Properties within the Town of Lansing Planning Area but outside of the Town of Lansing Service Area can be served by future collection sewers provided there is sufficient treatment plant capacity to handle a sewer extension to that area. No facilities are proposed for the Planning Area as part of this project. This EIS looks at impacts from extending sewers into the Planning Area so that they can be considered together with the impacts from the Town of Lansing Service Area, but any service that may be proposed in the future for the Planning Area will need to undergo separate environmental review. The Town of Lansing Planning Area is illustrated by Figure 3, "Town of Lansing Planning Area". DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 0 1 C C Ro Index map of New York showing County boundaries T n of Lansi 34 222 4B Town `f Groton 4B T f Uly • 89 Willa a of Lansing 13 village of, 'J ' `1 Cayuga Heigi s 79 366 �T o w n of D r y City of 1 lac 327 To I Ith Town of I .l_ \ :;r 79 Town of Carolin own of`D�5q ,T, wn of Newfie-1 34 Study Area Municipal Boundary 4 $ Area shown on large-scale map Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area THE �at� by: CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Cbap Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect o.I.: Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: J.IIy 12, 2002 20 GurleyAvenue Stratis Business Centers 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K 110 Glen Street COMPARES 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 Y Glens Falls, New York 12801 x,,., Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Figure 1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Study Area. Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists GIs Consultants This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy or this map. The Chazen Companies disclaims its intended Figure 1 expressly any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than use. 1 : 55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Municipal Boundary �) Parcel Boundary Sewer Service Area ,s State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Ra en_PA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants C VI m = z u� �1 �t �0� �dILLLf20� n gOA4 �2 s D � � NYpi Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. ToQvn of Lansi f UI wuage� ' Cayuga H h 79 �( City of I ac % 327 To 'dI I th Town of rte 1 1 222 Town f Groton ti 413 e of Lansing 13 13 366 Town of Dryd ,p 13 � Town of Carotin L'34 w n ofNewfie/Munidpal Boundary 0 2 4 Study Area Boundary [ Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area a-ua by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Figure 2. Town of Lansing Sewer Service Area. Various; see maps Figure 2 11 J GREEN'-` PO � �0�, ;= -I BOWED ` ROAD ? f { 4B a :Town_V Lansing '_- `?OINT �� v �V~ AUBURN-- R�-_ -:1ikRUVIL '` -RA NKCIN )R 1 �= -ROAD ;; _9Jn1_ 1 i J _I- 1_' w -ASBURY O- m 34 w C, E C112"IIGR L_ %IXE_. m s �; ° _ -_ �1AKE R VWATERWAGONBIT S 1 . 55,000:. m Miles ='•4 34 _ `•a'` _ - ---•*-cue �,• - � � Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundary}' L___ _� Sewer Planning Area _ > ,a State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Ra en PA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. — Village of Cayuga Heights Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue Manchester Rd. PO Box 3479 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. - State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental ImDact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 3. Town of Lansing Sewer Planning Area. b,: Carol Conolly .« July 12, 2002 soe: Various; see maps Figure 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Existing Municipal Wastewater Management Facilities This section of the DEIS provides an overview of the existing municipal wastewater management facilities serving the Study Area. The locations of existing municipal wastewater management facilities are illustrated by Figure 4, "Existing Municipal Wastewater Collection Facilities" and Figure 5, "Existing Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities". 2.1.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant Located at 951 East Shore Drive in the Village, the Village of Cayuga ' Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCHWTP) was constructed in the 1950's and upgraded in the late 1960's. It was originally designed to service the wastewater treatment needs of the Village service area through 1990. The plant was designed to treat a monthly daily wastewater flow of 2.0 MGD with a peak flow of 5.0 MGD. The plant ' was designed to accommodate daily BOD5 and suspended solids loadings of 3,400 lb/day and 4,000 lb/day, respectively. ' As detailed by current wastewater flow and loading records, monthly average and peak wastewater flows have exceeded the design capacity of the plant on a few occasions over recent years. This generally occurs ' during late winter/early spring conditions when snowmelt and rainfall combine to produce high groundwater conditions, resulting in inflow and infiltration. n effluent monitoring data compiled over the period of _ Analysis of plat g p January 1997 through December 2001 indicates relatively consistent compliance with SPDES permit limits for BOD5 and suspended solids. The minimum 30-day average percent removal requirements were exceeded on four occasions for BOD5 and on three occasions for suspended solids. This can be attributed to dilute influent BOD5 and suspended solids concentrations caused by high flow conditions. The ' maximum allowable 7-day average effluent BOD5 loadings were exceeded on two occasions over the 38-month period of record. The maximum allowable 7-day average effluent suspended solids loadings were also exceeded on two occasions. The occasional violations are being addressed by improvements to the VCHWTP. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 8 The total phosphorus SPDES permit limits were exceeded on several occasions during the period from January 1996 to November 1998, at which time plant improvements were made to enhance phosphorus removal to comply with effluent limits. With respect to fecal coliform, settleable solids and pH, the available data shows the plant operating within current SPDES permit limits. With respect to the chlorine residual, consistent compliance with the SPDES permit limit has been demonstrated, with the permit being exceeded only three times over the period of record. This issue is being addressed through the flow diversion component of this project, which will better enable the plant to comply with the chlorine residual limit. In 1987, the Village of Cayuga Heights Board enacted a sewer moratorium on any new sewer connections within the VCHWTP's service area. The moratorium was subsequently lifted, but the Village Board has curtailed the automatic issuance of sewer permits for new connections outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Under the current allocation of capacity, the Town of Ithaca has adequate unused capacity at the VCHWTP, but the Town and Village of Lansing's long- term development potential is curtailed by lack of capacity at the VCHWTP. Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant The original municipal sewage treatment plant for the Ithaca area was the City of Ithaca Sewer Treatment Facility. The Special Joint Subcommittee (SJS) of the City of Ithaca's Board of Public Works, with representatives from the City of Ithaca and the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, began a collective effort to upgrade this facility in 1981. These upgrades and improvements have resulted in the current treatment plant, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (IAWWTP). Located 1.4 miles south of the VCHWTP on Third Street in the City of Ithaca, the IAWWTP was completed in 1987 and includes a 6,600 foot outfall which extends 2,500 feet into Cayuga Lake at the point where Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet join. The facility was designed in accordance with the 1978 edition of the Ten -State Standards publication Recommended Standards for Sewage Works to provide treatment for an annual average flow of 7.5 MGD and a maximum monthly flow of 10.0 MGD. The plant provides secondary treatment and phosphorus removal. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 9 I The capacity of the IAWWTP was expanded in 1996-7 and is currently permitted to treat an annual average flow of 10.0 MGD and a ' maximum monthly flow of 13.1 MGD. ' The IAWWTP consistently produces effluent meeting the standards of its SPDES permit. The only exception has been BOD percent removal efficiencies slightly below the standard during periods of exceptionally high flows when the influent was diluted by infiltration and inflow. 2.1.2 Wastewater Collection Facilities The Village Of Cayuga Heights has an extensive municipal sanitary sewer collection system, with treatment occurring at the VCHWTP. Municipal sewer service is available throughout the Village and the number of on -site septic systems is minimal. ' The Village of Lansing currently has municipal sewer collection lines throughout the central and eastern portions of the Village. These lines (�1 are concentrated in the areas east of North Triphammer Road and in I 1 areas south of Oakcrest-Road. El The Town of Lansing currently has one municipal sewer district, the Cherry. Road Sewer District. Underground facilities within the District include 8-inch sewer lines extending north from the Village of Lansing ' along Bush Lane providing service to the Borg-Warner facility and the Horizons subdivisions. The remainder of the Town utilizes on -site septic disposal systems that consist of septic tanks with either trench C� or sand filter leaching systems, and small package plants. The Town of Dryden has a limited number of sewer collector lines, the majority of which are located along Route 366, near the Town of Ithaca border. The remainder of the Town in the DEIS Study Area utilizes on - site septic disposal systems that consist of septic tanks with either trench or sand filter leaching systems. The City of Ithaca has municipal sewer collection lines virtually throughout the City. There are few, if any, uses within the City not served by sewer. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 10 2.2 Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater Management Facilities IS describes facilities within the Town of Lansing This section of the DE g n Service Area proposed to be constructed as part of this project. The locations Uof these facilities are illustrated by Figure 6, "Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater Collection Facilities." 2.2.1 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loadings ' A summary of wastewater flow and loading projections to the VCHWTP is provided in Table 1. These data are based on an analysis of five years of plant records from January 1997 through December 2001. The current maximum monthly flow from the VCHWTP is 2.73 mgd. The initial maximum monthly flow from the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area is estimated to be 0.187 mgd. The 20-year design maximum monthly flow from this area is estimated to be 0.573 mgd. In order to limit the maximum monthly flow to the VCHWTP influent to 2 mgd, a total diversion of 0.92 mgd initially, and 1.30 mgd for the 20- year design period must be made to the IAWWTP. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 11 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADING PROJECTIONS CAYUGA HEIGHTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT aging Period LL; Area ; Initial Desi;� Initial , m Design Initial ' a `'.« Design• + I�ixal 'Design" Sewage Flow Annual average, mgd 1.87 0.144 0.441 2.01 2.31 0.44 0.74 1.57 1.57 Maximum month, mgd 2.73 0.187 0.573 2.92 3.33 0.92 1.3 2.00 2.00 Peak hourly, mgd 8.60 0.475 1.455 9.08 10.06 4.08 5.06 5.00 5.00 BOD5 Annual average, mg/l 217 250 237 -- -- 217 217 220 220 Annual average, lb/day 3,380 300 870 3,680 4,250 800 1,340 2,880 2 Maximum month, lb/day 5,200 390 1,130 5,590 6,330 1,660 2,350 3,930 3 Suspended Solids Annual average, mg/1 218 266 266 -- -- 218 218 214 223 Annual average, lb/day 3,280 320 980 3,600 4,260 800 1,340 2,300 2,920 Maximum month, lb/day 4,940 420 1,280 5,360 6,220 1,660 2,350 3,700 3,870 Phosphorus Annual average, mg/1 5.1 9.2 8.4 -- -- 5.1 5.1 5.5 6.1 Annual average, lb/day 80 11 31 91 111 19 31 72 80 Maximum month, lb/day 98 11 31 109 129 39 55 70 74 (1) Source: "Wastewater Facilities Plan, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York," October 1998 (Final). (2) Flow diversion calculations based on offset of annual average BOD5 loading from proposed Town of Lansing sewer service area. (3) Flow diversion necessary to limit maximum month and peak hourly flows influent to the VCHWTP to 2 mgd and 5 mgd, respectively. 4 Current Cayuga Heights flows based on 5-year period of record (1997-2002). March 2001 data excluded due to flow meter malfunction DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 12 A summary of wastewater flow and loading projections for the IAWWTP is provided in Table 2. These data are based on an analysis of five years of plant records from January 1997 through December 2001. The current maximum monthly flow rate from the IAWWTP service area is approximately 9.66 mgd. The maximum monthly diversion of the flows from the Cayuga Heights service area will be 0.92 mgd initially, and 1.30 mgd during the 20-year design period. Thus, the total projected maximum monthly flows to the IAWWTP will be 10.58 mgd initially and 10.96 mgd on a 20-year design basis. The current design capacity of the IAWWTP is 13.1 mgd. Therefore, the available maximum monthly flow rate capacity will be 2.52 mgd initially and 2.14 mgd during the 20-year design period. The available permitted capacity will allow for future growth within the Study Area communities. 2.2.2 Town of Lansing Service Area Proposed Improvements Town of Lansing Collector Sewers Municipal sewers will offer service to every existing residence, institution, business and industry within the Town of Lansing Service Area. The sewer network developed for this area, as illustrated in Figure . 6, reflects topography, building locations, property lines, environmental and cost considerations. A review of the network indicates gravity sewers can serve the majority of the service area. Customers north and northwest of Portland Point Road, with the exception of Ladoga Park, are served by sewers draining to a low point on Myers Road. Vacuum sewers, due to occasional flooding and lake influenced groundwater levels, must serve homes in the Ladoga Park area. The vacuum sewer system and Myers Road gravity sewers terminate in a pump station that lifts the wastewater to a proposed pump station on Portland Point. Wastewater from buildings upgrade of Woodsedge Drive will flow by gravity through the Lansing Center Commercial Park, south along Route 34, and west down Reach Run to the intersection of Smugglers Path, which marks the beginning of a 21-inch transmission main. Town of Lansing Vacuum Sewers Wastewater flows by gravity from individual buildings to a valve pit containing a vacuum interface valve. The valve remains closed until DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 13 ' sewage accumulates in the pit to a programmed level at which time the valve opens to the vacuum main. The IAWWTP was expanded in 1996 and is currently permitted to treat an annual average flow of 10.0 MGD and a maximum monthly flow of 13.1 MGD. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 M M M M M M M M M = M = = M = M 14 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADING PROJECTIONS ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Annual average, mgd 7.18 0.44 0.74 7.62 7.92 9.8 2.18 1.88 Maximum month, mgd 9.66 0.92 1.3 10.58 10.96 13.1 2.2 2.14 Peak hourly, mgd 25.0 4.08 5.06 29.1 30.1 32.0 2.8 1.9 BODE Annual average, mg/1 192 217 217 166 166 150 NA NA Annual average, lb/day 9,770 800 1,340 10,570 11,110 12,200 1,630 1,090 Maximum month, lb/day 12,090 1,660 2,350 13,750 14,440 15,130 1,380 690 Suspended Solids Annual average, mg/1 246 218 218 210 210 199 NA NA Annual average, lb/day 12,560 800 11340 13,360 13,900 16,200 2,840 2,300 Maximum month, lb/day 14,220 1,660 2,350 15,780 16,470 21,620 5,840 5,150 Phosphorus Annual average, mg/1 4.3 5.1 5.1 3.7 3.7 4.2 NA NA Annual average, lb/day 217 19 31 236 248 340 104 92 Maximum month, lb/day 260 39 55 300 315 453 153 138 (1) Based on analysis of IAWWTP influent monitoring data for January 1997-December 2001. April 2001 excluded as an atypical ever. (2) Partial diversion of sewage flow from the VCHWTP to offset additional BOD5 loading from proposed Town of Lansing sewer service area and limit influent sewage flows and loadings to current design capacity of 2.0 mgd (maximum monthly average flow). (3) Values rounded. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 C 15 C 1 Two proposed vacuum pumps, located on Town property, create a ' vacuum in the vacuum mains. The pumps, piping, controls and a collection tank are located in a 20-foot by 20-foot above grade vacuum collection station. The pumps maintain pressures seven to 10 psi lower than atmospheric pressure in the main, thus creating a vacuum. Wastewater is propelled into the vacuum main when the vacuum interface valve opens. Town of Lansing Pump Stations Three pump stations are proposed in the Town of Lansing Service Area. The pump stations will be single story buildings from 300 to 500 ' square feet in size. Architectural treatment will be compatible with local buildings. The pump station located at Portland Point (referred to as Pump Station No. 1 in this section) will pump wastewater from a low point on Myers Road to Portland Point Road. It discharges to a 12-inch main and flows by gravity to another pump station located near the outlet of Gulf Creek (referred to as Pump Station No. 2). Pump Station No. 2 will be an 8-foot diameter manhole approximately 20 feet deep housing two submersible 88 horsepower, 1,770 rpm pumps rated at 850 to 900 gpm at a pumping head of approximately 200 feet. Level floats may be adjusted to maximize storage and run time variables. Controls and the emergency generator will be located near the pump station. The pumps will lift wastewater approximately 200 feet to a location approximately 1,000 feet north of Reach Run. Wastewater will flow approximately 1,000 feet by gravity to Pump Station No. 3, located near a sharp bend on Reach Run. Pump Station No. 3 is identical to Pump Station No. 2. Pump Station No. 3 will lift wastewater to a manhole located at the intersection of Smugglers Path and Reach Run. This manhole marks the beginning of the 21-inch transmission main. Town of Lansing Transmission Svstem DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 16 The transmission main consists of 21-inch and 24-inch diameter gravity sewer pipe. Collector sewers and pressure sewers combine at a manhole located at the intersection of Smugglers Path and Reach Run. The 21-inch diameter gravity transmission main follows a 0.3 percent grade south and passes through Eastlake and Sunpath Roads into the Village of Lansing. The transmission pipe is upsized to 24-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Burdick Hill Road. The increased carrying capacity of a 24-inch sewer will accommodate the balance of the Town of Lansing Planning Area not included in the Town of Lansing Service Area. The 24-inch sewer continues south along East Shore Drive to the intersection of Cayuga Heights Road and then follows an abandoned railroad grade through the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights. The Village of Lansing's existing 15-inch railroad interceptor sewer intersects the railroad grade below Twin Glens Road and terminates at the VCHWTP. It is proposed the two transmission mains interconnect allowing shared capacity with a 21-inch main installed parallel to the existing main. The 21-inch main would also terminate at the VCHWTP. Approximately 19,700 linear feet of large diameter transmission main will be constructed. Diversion of Cavuaa Heights to IAWWTP The Village of Cayuga Heights and Ithaca Area collection systems serve adjacent neighborhoods and can easily be interconnected. The February 1998 completion of a 36-inch diameter transmission main in the City (identified as a need in 1989 to correct an overflow problem at the high school) will allow sewage from areas in the northeast to be conveyed and treated at the IAWWTP. The transmission system and comparatively low cost of system interconnections may allow individuals, communities and municipalities to capitalize on the treatment capacities of both the VCHWTP and IAWWTP. Table 3 lists the wastewater flows and loads that are projected to be treated at the VCHWTP and the flows and loads that are proposed to be diverted to the IAWWTP. The total flow diversion from Cayuga Heights is proposed to be 0.74 mgd on an average annual basis and 1.30 mgd on a maximum month basis. The VCHWTP and IAWWTP combined would accommodate the present and 20-year future wastewater treatment needs from the Town of Lansing Study Area, as well as the projected 20-year needs in the other municipalities who are participants in the project. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 17 ' Two diversions are Figure 7A illustrates the Kline Road Interceptor and proposed. � P Figure 7B Illustrates the Remington Road Interceptor. The proposed Kline Road by- pass will divert at least two spurs of the existing Village of Cayuga Heights collection system to the IAWWTP. The diversion area includes Kline Road, Oakhill Road, East Upland Road, lower Hanshaw Road, Iroquois Place and the southern D end of Cayuga heights Road. The by-pass will consist of approximately 380 feet of 12-inch SDR 35 PVC sewer, 20 feet of 12-inch DIP sewer, six manholes, a metering manhole with a 6-inch Parsall flume and six connections to the existing sewer. No environmental analyses of either diversion is required because both merely involve the replacement of existing pipes with larger pipes within existing roadways or disturbed rights of way. The existing rights -of -way are associated with existing sewers and are regularly mowed and maintained. Ft I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 r 71 F _` 7.y C71 18 TABLE 3 WASTEWATER FLOW AND LOADING PROJECTIONS CAYUGA HEIGHTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Annual average, mgd 1.87 0.144 0.441 0.23 0.67 0.21 0.08 0.44 0.74 1.57 1.56 Maximum month, mgd 2.73 0.187 0.573 0.3 0.86 0.62 0.44 0.92 1.30 2.00 2.00 Peak hourly, mgd 8.60 0.475 1.455 0.92 2.67 3.15 2.38 4.08 5.06 5.00 5.00 BOD5 Annual average, mg/l 7 250 237 217 217 217 217 217 217 220 222 Annual average, lb/day 3,380 300 870 420 1,210 380 130 800 1,340 2,880 2,910 Maximum month, lb/day 5,200 390 1,130 540 1,560 1,120 790 1,660 2,350 3,930 3,980 Suspended Solids Annual average, mg/1 218 266 266 218 218 218 218 218 218 214 223 Annual average, lb/day 3,280 320 980 420 1,220 380 120 800 1,340 2,800 2,920 Maximum month, lb/day 4,940 420 1,280 540 1,560 1,120 790 1,660 2,350 3,700 3,870 Total Phosphorus Annual average, mg/l 5.1 9.2 8.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.5 6.1 Annual average, lb/day 80 11 31 10 28 9 3 19 31 72 80 Maximum month, lb/day 98 11 31 13 36 19 19 39 55 70 74 1) Source: "Wastewater Facilities Plan, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York," October 1998 (Final). 2) Flow diversion calculations based on offset of annual average BOD5 loading from proposed Town of Lansing sewer service area. 3) Flow diversion necessary to limit maximum month and peak hourly flows influent to the VCHWTP to 2 mgd and 5 mgd, respectively. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 LI 19 fl 1 1 2.3 Project Costs 2.3.1 Total Estimated Project Costs The total estimated project cost (planning, design and construction) for the projects necessary to provide and or extend sewer service in the Town and Village of Lansing is $11,210,000, as presented in Table 4. New York State Bond Act funding for the eligible costs of each of these projects has been applied for in fiscal years (FY) 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2001-2002. Only construction costs are eligible (fiscal, legal and engineering costs are not eligible for funding) with the maximum grant being 85 percent of the construction cost. As of May 1, 2002, the total committed Bond Act funding for these projects is $3,523,000. Additional Bond Act funding in the amount of $2,040,000 has been requested. If fully funded, the remaining amount to be locally funded is $5,647,000 as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Cost Summary South Lansing Area Collector Sewers - South Lansing Area Transmission - South Lansing Area Collector and Lateral Sewers - Myers Road Area Pump Stations Transmission to Cayuga Heights WWTF Diversion of Cayuga Heights Wastewater to IAWWTF TOTALS $3,200,000 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $550,000 $370,000 $0 $180,000 $1,630,000 $1,080,000 $0 $550,000 $1,360,000 $900,000 $0 $460,000 $2,350,000 $1,020,000 $680,000 $650,000 $240,000 $153,000 $0 $87,000 $11,210,000 $3,523,000 $2,040,000 $5,647,000, DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 20 1 t L_l 2.4 Joint Sewer Agreement The project sponsors propose to provide joint wastewater treatment under the auspices of a Joint Sewer Agreement. A draft copy of this agreement is found in Appendix 1. Under the draft Joint Sewer Agreement, the sponsoring municipalities agree to jointly own and operate the IAWWTP and the VCHWTP. The service areas for these two plants would be combined into one service area because flows would be diverted from the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP. The agreement also proposes a new service area that includes parts of the Towns of Lansing and Dryden that are currently not sewered and are not currently included in either plant's service area. The agreement also spells out how sewer service may be expanded in the future and how sewage treatment capacity will be allocated among the municipalities. 2.5 Permits and Approvals This section of the DEIS outlines the permits and approvals required for the project. 2.5.1 Federal Agencies The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) will have jurisdiction over construction activities for sewer line crossings of certain streams. This may involve notification under a Nationwide Permit for certain of the crossings. 2.5.2 State Agencies The following state agencies have regulatory approval over the project: 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The NYSDEC is the Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of this project. NYSDEC must approve the plans and specifications for the proposed sewers and pump stations. NYSDEC will issue a water quality certification for stream crossing activities in Federally regulated waters. NYSDEC will be responsible for ensuring compliance with a general stormwater permit for the project. NYSDEC will administer Bond Act funds and enter into contracts with each municipality for administration of the Bond Act funds. 2. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The NYSDOT must approve plans for work within State rights -of -way. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 NYSDOT's primary review is the review of plans for the maintenance of traffic safety during construction. 3. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC). The NYSEFC is providing partial financing to the project in the form of low interest loans through the State Revolving Fund. The NYSEFC is responsible for the approval of a number of administrative actions, including the review of plans and specifications, in connection with its funding. 4. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag and Markets). Ag and Markets requires a discussion of the impact of the action on agriculture. A Notice of Intent will be filed at the time of formation of the sewer districts. This DEIS analyzes the impacts of the action on agriculture consistent with the requirements of the Agriculture and Markets law. 2.5.3 County Agencies The following County agencies have regulatory approval over the project: 1. Tompkins County Department of Public Works (TCDPW). The TCDPW is responsible for approving construction within county - owned rights -of -way. As with the NYSDOT, the TCDPW's primary concern is the maintenance and safety of traffic flow. 2. Tompkins County Department of Health (TCDOH). The TCDOH is responsible for review and approval of the construction plans for the project. 2.5.4 Local Agencies The following municipalities are joint sponsors of the project: Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing, Town of Lansing, Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca. They must decide whether to enter into the Joint Sewer Agreement and construct the diversions between the VCHWTP and IAWWTP. The Town of Lansing must decide whether to construct the sewers and pump stations to serve the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area. Additionally the Public Works Departments of the sponsors must approve activities within the rights -of -way of town, village or City owned roads. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 22 2.6 Sewer Benefit District Prior to the construction of sewers within the Town of Lansing Service Area, there will need to be formed one or more sewer benefit districts, which will be subject to a permissive referendum(s). The sewer benefit districts would likely follow the boundaries of the Town of Lansing Service Area once those boundaries are determined and approved, although they may not do so exactly. The creation of the Benefit District will allow users to be assessed for their fair share of construction, operation and maintenance costs. Sewer benefit districts have not yet been proposed, are not part of this DEIS, and will undergo separate environmental review if and when they are proposed. 2.7 Project Schedule The anticipated completion date for the SEQR review and approval process is Summer of 2002, after which the final design process will begin. Construction is proposed to begin by the end of 2002 and be completed in 2004. Appendix 2 contains the proposed construction schedule. The following is a description of the general steps by which construction phases will most likely be completed. ■ Survey and stakeout of the proposed facilities, including all proposed sewer lines and the pump stations. Survey and stakeout of the proposed alignments will most likely stay one week ahead of the construction schedule, rather than completing the work for the entire phase at the same time. ■ Trench excavation for proposed pipe facilities, including demolition of existing pavement as necessary. ■ Placement of pipe bedding, pipe and pipe backfill. ■ Replacement of pavement and/or topsoil and seeding. ■ Construction of the pump stations will most likely occur simultaneously with the construction of the pipelines. ■ Inspection and testing of the constructed pipelines. ■ Approval and acceptance of the constructed facilities. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 23 1 2.8 Future Construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area As discussed in Section 1.3.2, facilities in the Town of Lansing Service Area have been sized to accommodate potential future sewer service in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. A conceptual plan for the extension of such sewers has been developed and is shown in Figure 8, "Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Wastewater Collection Facilities". The conceptual plan involves the construction of ' approximately 38 miles of collector sewers and four pump stations. It is emphasized that funding has neither been sought nor provided for this project and that it is not currently proposed. However, to the extent that the potential environmental impacts of the conceptual sewer locations illustrated in Figure 8 can be assessed, this DEIS does so in order to assess impacts from the proposed and conceptual projects together, and to determine what the boundaries should be for the ' VCHWTP-IAWWTP service area. If the conceptual sewers are ever proposed in the future, their impacts will be evaluated through a future environmental review process. IDEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w _ _ _ ... _. GREEN O °gyp BOWER ROAD ROAD Town of Lansing 34 N 413 R / w E S .RAMRIN Q O °O = U p = r •`��.�:;� ROAD p !�S . - ' :i : a "'';''- R 2 UGf1 LiIIM,- WATERWAGON Rd 'L ITS _ rLio LJ O < z0 34 0 s ; RO .HTD p Town of Dryden Roe ig - I-tKERRYA ROAD �p 42ajoDR y AO / BUROICK HILL RDp Tp SNY°ER O FT RD O EIBLER ? wAVDc g oawE . OAKCREST R I DRNE G�E� B ROgC EfNA ROAf- P E( 13 Z ROAD - G�Ex '9 P - - - - SO LD`N p ;k. llage of Lansing y�AW Vim Village of R o n Cayuga Heights O Existing Pumpstations Existing Sewer Lines L J Study Area Municipal Boundary Roads ,s State Highway County Highway Local Road 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 a 0 0 g a RO�IOK. ¢ o y ROAD St- x 000rn O d`p \%-ER SODOM ROAD i� 79 A = R 0 0 o = U TrnWn of Lansi 34 413 48 T f Uly _ � gg Villa e 96 Village c " 13 ayuga Hehh T9 36( City of 17aC 327 To I t h Town of 1 own o n of Newfiel 34 I a Town bf Groton of Lansing Town of Dry Town of Carolin q Municipal Boundary Study Area Area shown on large-scale map 2 4 8 State Highway Miles Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area THE �.IMb, CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol Conolly Cbmn Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Date: Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: COMPA I ES 20 Gurley Avenue Manchester Rd. PO Box 3479 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers Troy, New York 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 July 12, 2002 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Newburgh, New York 12550 Hingham, MA 02043 Figure 4. Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities. seek: Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Phone: (781) 556-1037 Phone: (518) 812-0513 I Planners Various; see maps Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 4 Municipal Boundary Wastewater Treatment Facilities ■ Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treat ■ Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road - Cayuga Lake N W-(�- E 1 : 65,000 0 0.5 1 TRa HE C�2PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants 2 1 Miles CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. 0 Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue Manchester Rd. PO Box 3479 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781j 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi I 4B T . f Uly s 89 96 Village 1>tr ayuga He 79 City of 1 a1a j 327 Ta i Town of 222 � Town `f Groton 4 of Lansing Town of Dry Town of Carolin t34 wn of `b -n wn of Newfief L--j 0 2 4 8 1:3 Municipal Boundary Miles Study Area Boundary State Highway Area shown on large-scale map Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Imorovement Proiect Figure 5. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities. C Ad by: Carol Conolly OR,: July 12, 2002 Soak: Various; see maps Figure 5 J j Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Municipal Boundary Sewer Service Area O Proposed Pumpstations for Service Area Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area ,s State Highway County Highway Local Road Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights . 34 Town of En he771 Town pf Groton of Lansing Town of Dry Town of Carolin r� �l V o w n o. f ,n,� ewn' of Newfiel Lj t Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 ® Study Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map - State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Created by: THE Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol Conolly CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect, Date: Cbap Capital District Office: Orange Coun Office: New England Office: North Country Office: County Offce: ty Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street 263 Route 17K Figure ti. Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater g July 12, 2002 COMPARES 21 Foxss 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 g Collection Facilities. sca e: Various; Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Phone: (781) 556-1037 see maps Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 6 GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities r SANITARY SEWER NOTES No N W� E S THE Chazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants T. G. MILLER P.C. n ." G) X, ONwT-S, ROAD MaM vrisY0& 7= 1z ROAD owaout ix 6� 20 r-Ir D1 � PRE AI 1= W DWAUM GAS ttAw 10 BE �m By �Y�Q 4111 LF- 'r SM PPE a '.0Z REPLACE E—IG w 11M1 rav!V- mr�lE x - 501'UtY EleleWR SINViFtY ,Fall W. AS SPED M-f —r. Ir S-n " PAVOnW FX510PA710k SAN. PFE AT X APPRooi`&`UE i-1 LA110- L PRE AT tax S 'M Is e OAK= REPLACE C=iiXi REOIX� EWsMiG siiiMitf 14 V 0 -;a 0 I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. —N- 9ENERAL NOTES —4—A — I= 0 0 + Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used For reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. 0 Z: to EL 1. < cr to LL- E 0 LLj (D < lal zi Warning MM & Hamm pr. Itfa UXZE ea M974 PFZZMYL DC.M n U) U� LLJ SHEET TITLE � PLAN 0 E99-113 AS SFICATI Awe 1-0 F 2 Tow*nf Groton Lansing of, 13 13 i Town of D(rydd ,n t;szf TOWof Ith Town O�flww Town of Carolin own o n of Newfiel 34 1 MMunicipal Boundary C3Study Area Boundary Village of Cayuga Heights State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Reads State Highway Loral Road Village of Cayuga Heights 0 Location ol'Proposed Interceptor W'A Qr.W by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conollyo.t.: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Figure 7A. Proposed Cayuga Heights Interceptor. Various; see maps Figure 7A J w _�__ _-_ " - - _ " : ,; : ' .:+t.� -± Y i✓� � j :� J'�1��� �•..�' � - '.'F-_T_t in % �.=st-:=.%t �r r • • Roads -' State Highway County Highwa, Local Road O O O O O • O Layer Build - Centerline _ Hydro Service Sp Elev Text Storm _ == Veggies THE Chazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants cc Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 I �� :EEj 1 1 / I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Index map showing the City and Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, NY Miles State Highway 0 0.5 1 2 [:3 Municipal Boundary Cayuga Lake Area shown on large scale map Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 7B. Remington Road Interceptor Created by: Carol Conolly Wt.: July 12, 2002 Sale: Various; see maps Figure 7B V I - - - - J Ao VI , ,Town. of+;Lansr 01NT - - t '�. - 1 TE 1:55, 000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Municipal Boundary _ Sewer Planning Area O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area O S 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road O Z L ate{ 0 i� 34 JI'Ti x x .r—• _' ATERWAGOk,R?T- z F", '0 iYe`id. I H ILL R Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights N W E s OADI T Lvn Lansi� of 34 413 f Uly 89 Ella 96 vivage 13 Cayuga H h 79 , City of I ac �( 327 To I t h Town. of ( Town bf Groton of Lansing 0 13 Town of Dr Town of Carolin ,_ 1 own of`ianp � wn of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 ® Study Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, IVY showing the study area THE Created by CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental ImDact Statement:- carol conolly Chazen Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project Date: Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: COMPARES 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New Figure 8. Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Wastewater 9 9 9 July 12, 2002 Troy, New York 12182 99 York 12801 v, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 v tee: Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Collection Facilities. Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 8 24 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section of the DEIS presents the existing environmental setting for the entire DEIS Study Area. Note that the source for all natural resource mapping in this section is the Tompkins County Planning Department. Section 4 assesses the potential direct impacts of the proposed project, the construction of wastewater collection facilities to serve the Town of Lansing Service Area. Section 5 assesses the impacts associated with the potential construction of new wastewater collection facilities at some future point in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. Section 6 assesses the impacts of potential induced growth throughout the DEIS Study Area. 3.1 Topography Topography in the DEIS Study Area is illustrated by Figure 9, "Topography". Elevations in the Study Area range from approximately 400-feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 1100-feet above MSL. In general, topography in the DEIS Study Area slopes from east to west, towards Cayuga Lake. Slopes vary considerably, with areas of steepest slope concentrated along Cayuga Lake north of Rt. 79, and several hills in the Town of Dryden. Steep slopes are also found along many of the small drainages throughout the DEIS Study Area. 3.2 Geology. The DEIS Study Area is underlain by sedimentary rocks of middle to upper Devonian age (i.e. approximately 360 to 380 million years old). Three major bedrock groups are found. Genesee Group. Two members of the Genesee Group are found underlying the DEIS Study Area: the West River Shale and the Tully Limestone. The West River Shale consists of shale and siltstone. The Tully is a limestone formation. Hamilton Group. Two members of the Hamilton Group are found underlying the DEIS Study Area: the Ludlowville Formation and the Moscow Formation. Both formations consist of shales and limestones. Sonyea Group. The member of the Sonyea Group underlying the DEIS Study Area is the Cashaqua Shale. Bedrock depths within the DEIS Study Area are relatively shallow. This is a major factor influencing the ability to construct an on -site sanitary waste disposal system, since at least two feet of vertical separation is required _' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 25 between the bottom of the waste disposal system and bedrock. Bedrock depths, as derived from the Tompkins County Soil Survey, are illustrated by Figure 10, "Depth to Bedrock". Depths to the water table are also relatively shallow within the DEIS Study Area, again influencing the ability to construct conventional sanitary sewage disposal systems. Depths to the water table, as derived from the Tompkins County Soil Survey, are illustrated by Figure 11, "Depth to Water Table". Surficial Geology in the DEIS Study Area is illustrated by Figure 12, "Surficial Geology". The following describes the surficial geology features of the DEIS Study Area. Note that with respect to Figure 12, areas of bedrock are those areas where bedrock is exposed or located within one meter of the surface. Till. Till is the predominant surficial deposit in the DEIS Study Area. Texture varies from boulders to silt. The till is usually poorly sorted and is rich in sand. Permeability varies depending on compaction. Thickness ranges from one to 50 meters. Kame Deposits. These deposits are composed of coarse to fine gravel and/or sand. Sorting, texture and permeability characteristics vary through the lateral cross-section of the deposit. These deposits may be firmly cemented with calcareous cement and the thickness of each deposit ranges from 10 to 30 meters. Kame Moraine. The texture of these deposits varies from boulders to sand. These deposits were left at an active ice margin during retreat. The thickness of the deposit varies from 10 to 30 meters. Lacustrine Sand. These deposits are generally composed of well -sorted, stratified quartz sand. Usually deposited in pro -glacial lakes, they may also have been deposited on remnant ice, generally near shore or another sand source. These deposits are variable in thickness, ranging from two to 20 meters. ' Lacustrine Silt and Clay. These deposits are generally laminated silt and clay deposited in pro -glacial lakes. They have low permeability and may overlie ' unstable land formations. These deposits may be as much as 50 meters thick. Till moraine. Texture of this formation varies in both size and sorting. Permeability is generally low, and thickness varies from 10 to 30 meters. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 26 Bedrock. These are areas where bedrock is exposed or within one meter of the surface. Extractive use is made of the limestone resources within the DEIS Study Area. The primary extractive use is Cargill Crushed Stone, a producer of crushed stone products. 3.3 Soils Soils in Tompkins County have been mapped at the association level, a level that provides a relatively general description of soil characteristics. Figure 13, "Soil Associations", illustrates soil associations in the DEIS Study Area. A detailed description of soil associations is found in Appendix 3, "Soil Descriptions". As discussed in the previous section, depths to bedrock and the water table have been derived from the Tompkins County Soils Survey. Table 5 below summarizes depths to bedrock and water table for each soil type in the DEIS Study Area. Table 5 Soil Series Summary Aurora -Angola 20 - 40 inches Not Given Aurora -Farmington -Manlius 10 - 40 inches Not Given Ellery-Erie-Alden > 60 inches 0 to 1.25 feet Hamlin, fan -Palmyra > 60 inches Not Given Hamlin -Teel > 60 inches Not Given Howard-Arkport > 60 inches 2 to 3 feet Howard-Chenango > 60 inches 2 to 3 feet Howard -Palmyra > 60 inches 3 feet Howard -Phelps > 60 inches 0.5 to 3 feet Hudson -Dunkirk > 60 inches 0.8 to 2 feet Hudson -Rhinebeck > 60 inches 0 to 2 feet Kendaia-Lyons Not Given 0 to 1.25 feet Langford -Erie > 60 inches 0.3 to 2.5 feet Lansing-Conesus > 60 inches 0.5 to 2.5 feet Lordstown-Langford > 60 inches 0 to 2.5 feet Lordstown-Mardin 60 inches to 20+ feet 2.5 to 1.7 feet Lordstown-Mardin-Langford 60 inches to 20+ feet 0.5 to 2.5feet Ovid -Ilion 40 to inches to > 8 feet 0 to 1.25 feet Palmyra > 60 inches 3 feet Sloan-Madalin-Fonda 40 inches to 30+ feet 0 to 1 foot Sloan -Teel, alluvial land Not Given Not Given DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 27 U The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service designates certain soil units as prime farmland. Note, -that prime farmland is designated at the series level, not the broader association level mapped in Figure 13 and presented in Table 5. Thus, the designation of prime farmland does not necessarily correspond to the available digital association level ' mapping provided in this DEIS. Note that detailed hard copy mapping is available for individual farms that participate in the Agricultural District program and may be obtained from the Tompkins County Planning Office. The soil series in Table 6 have been designated as prime farmland, and therefore all or parts of the corresponding soil associations may also be considered prime farmland. Table 6 Prime Farmland at the Soil Series Level Chenango Gravelly Loam 0 to 5 percent slopes Chenango Gravelly Loam 5 to 15 percent slopes ' Conesus Gravelly Silt Loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Conesus Gravelly Silt Loam 3 to 8 percent slopes Howard Gravelly Loam 0 to 5 percent slopes Kendaia Silt Loam 3 to 8 percent slopes -- Lansing Gravelly Silt Loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Lansing Gravelly Silt Loam 3 to 8 percent slopes Lansing gravelly Silt Loam 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Ovid Silt Loam 0 to 6 percent slopes Ovid and Rhinebeck Silt 0 to 2 percent slopes Loams, Moderately Deep ' Palmyra Gravelly Loam 0 to 5 percent slopes Phelps Gravelly Silt Loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Phelps Gravelly Silt Loam 3 to 8 percent slopes I ' 3.4 Water Resources j There are numerous natural watercourses located within the DEIS Study U Area, all of which flow to Cayuga Lake. Figure 14, "Water Resources" illustrates the watercourses in the DEIS Study Area. Watercourses are ' classified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation from Class AA to D, with AA being the highest designation and D the lowest. Classifications are based on the highest and best use. Class A and Class AA CI water bodies are suitable for drinking water. Class B water bodies are suitable for primary contact recreation such as swimming. Class C water bodies are suitable for fish propagation. Class D waters are suitable for Csecondary contact recreation such as boating. The designation of a water as a (t) water body denotes its suitability for trout habitat, while the designation DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 28 as an (s) water body denotes its suitability for trout spawning. Permits are not required for activities in Class C and D water bodies, unless they are designated as suitable for trout habitat or spawning. Within the DEIS Study Area, all water bodies are classified as Class C. Four water bodies are classified as Class C(t). Cayuga Lake immediately adjacent to the Study Area is classified A and AA The location of these water bodies is illustrated and shown as protected on Figure 14. Figure 15, "Floodplains" depicts the 100-year flood plain boundaries within the DEIS Study Area. The 100-year floodplain is that area along a stream or lake with a statistical probability of 1% of being flooded in any given year. Several areas of proposed improvements are located within 100-year floodplains. Aquifers are water -bearing geologic formations that can transmit water at useful rates. Figure 16, "Aquifers" illustrates the location of aquifers within the DEIS Study Area. Aquifer types in the DEIS Study Area are described as follows. ■ Till and/or Bedrock: The DEIS Study Area is primarily underlain by till and/or bedrock aquifer. Till consists of a poorly sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and stones that were compacted by ice. Till yields water very slowly and does not constitute a significant aquifer. Bedrock typically has very few primary openings through which water may seep; therefore, water is mostly available through fractures. Bedrock also does not constitute a significant aquifer. ■ Alluvial Aquifers: These aquifers were formed where tributaries deposited coarse -grained sediment (mostly sand and gravel) upon entering large valleys. These unconfined aquifers are recharged by precipitation that percolates directly into the water table, by upland surface water run-off and by seepage from nearby tributaries. These aquifers are highly susceptible to human -induced contamination. ■ Deltaic Aquifers: These aquifers were formed where tributaries deposited coarse -grained sediment (mostly sand and gravel) upon entering a lake. These unconfined aquifers are recharged by precipitation that percolates directly into the water table, by upland surface water run-off and by seepage from nearby tributaries. These aquifers are highly susceptible to human -induced contamination. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 29 ■ Kame Aquifers: These deposits were originally deposited on or adjacent to glaciers as the ice melted and consist of coarse sand to cobble gravel with some silty sand lenses. These areas may be seasonally saturated along hillsides. ■ Sand and Gravel Aquifers: These deposits are of unknown origin and are typically found overlying bedrock areas. These aquifers can be confined or unconfined in nature and typically contain multiple aquifers. ■ Unknown aquifers: These are areas of valley -fill deposits in which data does not exist to determine if the area is a significant aquifer. Virtually all of the area for which facilities are proposed to be constructed are located in areas of till or bedrock, which are not areas of significant water production. The facilities of several water systems are located within or near the DEIS Study Area. These systems are described as follows. The Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) provides drinking water to users in the Towns of Dryden, Ithaca and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing. The SCLIWC also provides water to the City of Ithaca during periods 'of emergency or regular maintenance. Drinking water originates in Cayuga Lake and is treated at the Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant located on East Shore Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850. The City of Ithaca Water System (CIWS) provides drinking water to users in the City of Ithaca and a limited number of BPMWS users. Drinking water originates in a reservoir in Six Mile Creek and is treated at the City water treatment plant located at 202 Water Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. The Cornell Water System (CUWS) provides drinking water to users within the University and a limited number of the BPMWS and CIWS users. Drinking water originates in Fall Creek and is treated at the Cornell water treatment plant located at 101 Caldwell Road, Ithaca, New York 14853. In addition, there are numerous private well points located throughout the DEIS Study Area. These well points have not been comprehensively mapped at this time. The proposed sewer transmission main is located in close Ci proximity to one known private water supply on the Leopold property at 1203 East Shore Drive. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 30 3.5 Flora and Fauna ' The DEIS Study Area is generally characterized by open fields, farms and woodlots, some of which are being converted to development. The DEIS Study Area is traversed by westward flowing streams that drain to Cayuga Lake. Areas of unique habitat are discussed in Section 3.7 below. ' Correspondence was sent to the State and Federal governments regarding the presence of rare, threatened or endangered species in the DEIS Study Area. The responses are found in Appendix 4. CThe United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), indicated that there are no Federally listed or proposed to be listed (j rare, threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of this agency �—' within the DEIS. Study Area. ' According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Natural Heritage Program, there are several State listed rare, threatened or endangered species within the DEIS Study Area. The NYSDEC prohibits the precise location of such species from being made public in order to protect the species. The list of potential species is in the possession of the project sponsor. According to the NYSDEC files, within the Town of Dryden there is one rare, threatened or endangered species of dragonfly, one unique community and 15 rare, threatened or endangered plant species, seven of which are located within the DEIS Study Area. There are no such species within the Village of j Cayuga Heights. There are four species of rare, threatened or endangered plants listed within the Town and/or Village of Lansing. These protected _ species are associated with two Unique Natural Areas within the Town of jLansing Planning Area, Esty's Glen and McKinney's Twin Glens and Lake C. These areas are described in more detail in Section 3.7. ' 3.6 Wetlands Wetlands greater than 12.4 acres in size are mapped and regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The location of NYSDEC wetlands in the DEIS Study Area is illustrated by Figure 17. The ' identification number and classification of each wetland is shown in Table 7. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 i 31 C' Table 7 NYSDEC Wetlands WG-14 2 2 GR-19 2 j I WG-20 1 ` I WG-21 2 TA-1 2 TA-2 2 TA-4 3 TA-5 2 TA-6 2 TA-7 2 TA-9 2 TA-10 1 TA-13 1 ' With respect to Table 7, Class 1 regulated wetlands are the most valuable wetland areas and are classified as such if they contain any one of the following features: kettlehole bog; endangered/ threatened plant or animal habitat; habitat for animals unusual to the region; is a tributary important to flood minimization; adjacent to public reservoir supply; or contains four or ' more of the Class 2 characteristics. There are three Class I regulated wetlands in the DEIS Study Area. Class 2 NYSDEC regulated wetlands are designated as such if the area contains one of the following features: emergent marsh where purple loosestrife is less than 2/3 the covertype; two or more structural associations; L contiguous to tidal wetland; associated with permanent open water outside the wetland; adjacent to stream with Class C(t) or higher; migration habitat of threatened/ endangered species; resident habitat or vulnerable animal or plant species; animals unusual for county are in abundance; archaeological or paleontological significance; unique geologic features; tributary to water body ithat floods; hydraulically connected to an aquifer; tertiary treatment to a sewage disposal system; within an urbanized area; one of three largest wetlands in a municipality; within a publicly owned recreation area. There are nine Class 2 wetlands within the DEIS Study Area. Class 3 NYSDEC regulated wetlands are designated as such if they contain i any of the following features: emergent marsh wetland dominated by purple loosestrife/phragmites; deciduous swamp; shrub swamp; floating or submergents vegetation; open water; upland island large enough to be a wildlife refuge; total alkalinity at least 50 ppm; adjacent to fertile uplands; DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 32 resident habitat of an animal or plant species vulnerable in the major region of the state or a traditional migration habitat; part of a surface water system with open water and receives pollution that can be reduced by the presence of the wetland; visible from a travel corridor and provides aesthetics/ open space; one of the three largest wetlands of the same covertype in a town; in a town where the wetland acreage is less than 1% of total acreage; and is on publicly owned land open to the public. There is one Class 3 wetland within the DEIS Study Area. There are no occurrences of Class 4 NYSDEC regulated wetlands within the DEIS Study Area. The Federal government regulates activities in wetlands as small as 0.1 acres in size. Although not considered comprehensive, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps Federally regulated wetlands based on aerial photography and soils information. The locations of these wetlands in the DEIS Study Area are shown in Figure 18. The Project Engineer for the proposed project has reviewed the location of proposed sewer lines in the field and determined that no Federally regulated wetlands will be impacted by the project. 3.7 Unique Natural Areas The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has designated Unique Natural Areas (UNA's) throughout the County. The Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) of Tompkins County are sites with outstanding environmental qualities, as defined by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, that are deserving of special attention for preservation and protection. UNAs include such natural features as gorges, woods, swamps, fens, cliffs, and streams. They lie on both publicly and privately owned lands and are generally not open to the public. There are 42 Unique Natural Areas located within the DEIS Study Area; 6 are located within the Town of Lansing Service Area and 21 are located in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. 19 are located in the Town of Dryden. Figure 19 depicts the location of the UNAs in the DEIS Study Area. Note that there are more UNAs listed below than are illustrated in Figure 19 because some UNAs are divided into several units for descriptive purposes, but are mapped as a single unit. The UNA's are described as follows. ■ UNA 24 is referred to as the Lake Cliffs, which are north of Myers Point. The area is largely forested and small streams dissect the site. Slopes in the area are moderate, with limestone outcrops and talus slopes. UNA 25 is included within this area. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 33 ■ UNA 25 is referred to as Hidden Glens, which are part of UNA 24. Three small creeks drop from the upland farmland down to the lake ' via this pair of glens, or small gorges. ■ UNA 27 is referred to as South Salmon Creek Woods. This forest is i characterized by large old trees, hardwoods and oaks. ' UNA 28 is referred to as Ludlowville Woods and is mostly forested. Several seeps can be found on the banks of Salmon Creek. Several streams that are tributary to the Creek are located within the Woods. ■ UNA 29 is NYSDEC mapped wetland number WG9. This wetland is described as 40% deciduous swamp, 10% tall slender shrubs, 20% bushy shrubs, 10% tall meadow emergents, 20% short meadow emergents, free floating plants and submergents. ■ UNA 30 is NYSDEC mapped wetland WG13. This wetland is described as deciduous swamp, 10% dead trees, 90% tall meadow emergents, short meadow emergents and robust emergents. ■ UNA 52 is NYSDEC mapped wetland WG14. This wetland is described as wet meadow with island, tall slender shrubs, 95% tall meadow emergents and 5% robust emergents. ■ UNA 53 is referred to as Portland Point Quarry and is a rock quarry characterized by rock outcroppings and forest brush, which is not of particular interest. It is considered the most important geological site ' in the county and is noted for its exposures of igneous dikes and thrust or reverse faults. The site is listed as a UNA because of its important geological features, because it is a cultural site and because it is an important teaching site. ■ UNA 54 is referred to as Minnegar Brook Woods and is a mature ' forest on fairly steep slopes. Several creeks dissect the property, exposing underlying shales. Part of this forested area is an old field - forest grown up on abandoned agricultural land. The forested ravines [i are largely undisturbed mature forest. Some sections, disturbed by gravel operations, are a shrub thicket. This site is listed as a UNA ' because it is a quality example of a plant community and because of its old growth forest. ' UNA 55 is referred to as Lower Salmon Creek and is natural forest with forest brush, rock outcrops and a stream. This area is associated DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 34 with floodplains. Forest trees include sycamore, cottonwood, black willow, basswood and American Elm. Vegetation along stream edges is weedy. This site is listed as a UNA because it is a bird site, because it contains rare or scarce plants, because of its diverse fauna, because of its geologic importance and because of its scenic/aesthetic value. ■ UNA 63 is referred to as Shurger Glen and is a wooded glen with waterfalls. The flats area is covered with a diverse herb layer that remains intact. Hemlock -beech forests are found on the steep north facing slopes; sugar maple -basswood forests are found on the lower south facing slopes. Mixed oak forest is found on the dry crests. Sycamore -cottonwood forest is found along the creek in the lower glen. This site is listed as a UNA because it is of geologic importance, it is a cultural site and because it contains rare or scarce plants. ■ UNA 64 referred to as Lake Cliffs, is South of Portland Point. This is an oak -hickory forest and a sugar maple -basswood -white ash forest in a narrow band above the lake cliffs. The forests along the top of the Lake Cliffs are a mixture of sugar maple -basswood -white ash on the deeper soils, with oak -hickory forests on the shallower, drier sites. Patches of oak -red cedar forest with pitch pine are found along the cliff edges. This site is listed as a UNA because it is of geologic importance, it is a cultural site and because it contains rare or scarce plants. ■ UNA 65 is referred to as Head Corners Wetland and is a wetland forest. This is a Federally regulated wetland. ■ UNA 66 is NYSDEC mapped wetland WG 21 and Cornell Ponds #1. This wetland area is described as bushy shrubs, tall meadow emergents, short meadow emergents, robust emergents, narrow leaved emergents, submergents and 85% open water. ■ UNA 67 is referred to as the Dryden -Lansing Swamp and is described ' as 5% permanent open water, mature deciduous swamp, 5% shrub swamp, wet meadow, coniferous swamp and 2% wet or fresh meadow. ' This is a Federally regulated wetland. ■ UNA 71 is referred to as the Mill Dam Marsh, in Freeville. This area is a shrub swamp with a stream, marsh, sedge meadow and abandoned meanders. This is a Federally regulated wetland. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 35 ' UNA 83 is a NYSDEC mapped wetland; NYSDEC code TA4. This wetland is described as 90% deciduous swamp, 10% tall slender shrub, EI sedges, free floating plants and bog mat plants. ■ UNA 84 is referred to as the Sheldon Road Wetland and consists of twetland shrubs and forest with open meadow areas. This wetland is part of a complex of wetlands in the area. This is a Federally regulated ' wetland. ■ UNA 85 is a NYSDEC mapped wetland; NYSDEC codes TA2 and TA3. This wetland is described as 10% deciduous swamp, dead trees, 90% tall slender shrubs, short meadow emergents, robust emergents and narrow leaved emergents. ■ UNA 86 is a NYSDEC mapped wetland; NYSDEC code TA5. This wetland is described as deciduous swamp, tall slender shrub, 50% bushy shrubs tall meadow emergents, 40% short meadow emergents, 10% robust emergents, narrow leaved emergents, broad-leaved emergents, broad-leaved emergents and 5% submergents. ■ UNA 87 is referred to as Fringed i ed Gentian Meadow and is a wet �- shrubland and old field forest which had grown up on abandoned pastureland. UNA 88 is referred to as Airport Ponds and is a wetland area, but not mapped by the NYSDEC. This wetland is described as tall slender shrubs, bushy shrubs, tall meadow emergents, short meadow emergents, robust emergents, narrow leaved emergents, broad leaved C1 1 emergents, free floating plants and submergents. This is a Federally E, regulated wetland. ■ UNA 89 is referred to as Lake Cliffs, from Mckinney's Point to Bolton Point. This area includes forested upland overlooking Cayuga Lake ' and is primarily oak woods and hemlock forest. Tall shrubs are sparse; low ericaceous shrubs are common. This site is listed as a UNA ' because it is of geologic importance, it has scenic/aesthetic value, it contains rare or scarce plants, it contains old growth forest, it is a historic botanical/zoological site and because it is a quality example of a plant community. ■ UNA 90 is referred to as Esty's Glen and is a steep sided rocky gorge with hemlock and oak hickory forests. Some of the potential endangered or protected species under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 i 36 ' are likely to occur within this area. Hemlock forests are found on the steep shady slopes. Oak hickory and oak red cedar forests are found on 4 the sunnier and drier south and west facing slopes. Rare plants are l found on the rocky cliffs and open areas of the dry forest. This site is listed as a UNA because it is of geologic importance, it has scenic/aesthetic value, it contains rare or scarce plants, it contains old growth forest and because it is a quality example of a plant ' community. ■ UNA 101 is referred to as Newman Tract and is a forested area between two small gorges. Undisturbed oak forests and scenic ravines are present. This site is listed as a UNA because it is a quality example of a plant community, it has scenic/aesthetic value. It is a designated natural area/preserve, it contains rare or scarce plants and it contains old -growth forest. ■ UNA 102 is referred to as Renwick Slope and is largely dry oakwood above the lake cliffs. The canopy is fairly open in places where rock outcrops are present. Spring wildflowers are abundant. This site is listed as a UNA because it contains rare or scarce plants, it contains rare or scarce community types, it is a quality example of a plant community, it has scenic/aesthetic value and it contains old -growth forest. . 1 ■ UNA 103 is referred to as McKinney's Twin Glens and Lake C. The site is largely forested and two gorges cut through the site with a high point located between them. The dry upper slopes are dominated by I oaks and oak dominant communities. The area is rich in plant species, with several rare species occurring. This area is listed as a UNA because it is a designated natural area/preserve, it is a quality example of a plant community, because it has scenic/aesthetic value, because it contains rare or scarce community types, because it is an area of geologic importance, because it contains rare or scarce plants, because 1jIit is a historic botanical/zoological site and because it contains old growth forest. ■ UNA 104 is referred to as Palmer Woods and is a forested area. Over half of the forested area is undisturbed old -growth forest dominated by ' large oaks. ■ UNA 106 is referred to as Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary. This area is described as 60% deciduous swamp, 5% tall meadow emergents, 5% short meadow emergents and 30% unvegetated open water. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 -' 37 UNA 107 is NYSDEC mapped wetland TA9. This wetland is described as deciduous swamp, bushy shrubs, robust emergents, tall slender i shrub and tall meadow emergents. ■ UNA 108 is referred to as Monkey Run and includes over 500 acres of runmanaged land along Fall Creek. i ■ UNA 110 is referred to as Etna Bird Sanctuary (Etna Marsh). It is a preserve of the Finger Lakes Land Trust. The vegetation is mostly marsh and sedge meadow. It is noted for its diversity of bird species. ■ _ UNA 120 is referred to as Ringwood Ponds and has kettle-kame topography with high ridges, deep kettle holes with vernal ponds and i permanent ponds and wetlands. ■ UNA 123 is referred to as Pine Woods and is a natural forest with conifer plantation, a gorge, a glen and a stream. ■ UNA 124 is referred to as Frost Ravine and native forest bands the small creek. a ■ UNA 125 is referred to as Durland Bird Preserve and is mixed woodlands, meadow and an Alder thicket swamp. ■ UNA 126 is referred to as Ellis Hollow Swamp, which is a natural forest with forest brush, wooded wetlands and streams. ■ UNA 127 is referred to as Polson Preserve and Snyder Hill, which is a broad forested hilltop. Several small and one large ravine dissect the site. r ■ UNA 128 is referred to as Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds. This is the forested slopes and floodplain of Cascadilla Creek. Some of the potential endangered or protected species under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC are likely to occur within this area. ■ UNA 129 is referred to as McGowan Woods and is a rich, diverse forest with extensive Spring wildflowers. ■ UNA 130 is referred to as Fall Creek Valley in Ithaca. This site includes the forested slopes above Fall Creek, the floodplain forest and (—; the Creek bed. Some of the potential endangered or protected species DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 [I 38 under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC are likely to occur within this area. ■ UNA 157 is referred to as Cooks Corner Gully and is relatively mature forest with a steep sided gorge and shale bedrock ledges. 3.8 Climate and Air Resources The climate of the DEIS Study Area is broadly classified as humid continental. It is characterized by cold snowy winters and warm, wet summers. Prevailing winds are from the northwest. The average annual maximum temperature is 55.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual minimum temperature is 36 degrees Fahrenheit. The hottest day on record is 103 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest is —35 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation averages 35.41 inches/year. Snowfall averages 67.3 inches/year. The nearest air quality monitoring station to the DEIS Study Area is located in East Syracuse and is identified as Site No. 3353-09N. This site monitors sulfur dioxide, inhalable particulates, inhalable particulates <2.5 microns in size, carbon monoxide and ozone. Data from this site shows compliance with all standards for all time periods, with the exception of ozone, for which slight exceedances of the daily standard were recorded in 1998 and 1999. It can be reasonably expected that ozone readings are lower in the Ithaca area since it is not as populated and has fewer emission sources leading to the formation of ozone. 3.9 Odors Existing sources of odor within the DEIS Study Area are typical of any area of mixed uses and include sources such as automobile exhaust and eating establishments in built-up areas and agriculture in more rural areas. 3.10 Cultural Resources A Stage 1A Literature Review, Sensitivity Analysis and Architectural Assessment was completed in October 2001 for the DEIS Study Area by City/Scape, Cultural Resource Consultants. This report is found in Appendix 5 of this EIS. This report was conducted by reviewing State files and other information and conducting a preliminary reconnaissance of the DEIS Study Area. The report identified a number of prehistoric resources located either within or in close proximity to the DEIS Study Area (See Table 2, Appendix 5). Most DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 39 C� of the identified prehistoric sites are focused on Cayuga Lake, Salmon Creek or other streams that flow through the project area. In assessing the potential of various locations within the DEIS Study Area to contain prehistoric cultural resources, a number of factors are taken into consideration: proximity to fresh water resources, well drained soils, natural resources, raw materials, transportation routes, and the density of recorded sites in the area and extent of disturbance. Examination of these factors suggest that the entire DEIS Study Area should be considered sensitive with respect to prehistoric cultural resources. Based on environmental models in use in New York State, it is concluded that "the terrain in the [DEIS Study Area] is similar to terrain in the general vicinity where recorded archeological sites are indicated," and "the physiographic character of the [DEIS Study Area] suggest a moderate to high probability of prehistoric occupation or use." Undisturbed areas within the DEIS Study Area must, therefore, be considered to possess the potential to contain a prehistoric site or sites. Besides the overall observations described above, the Stage 1A report also provided more site specific analysis of the pump station locations. Pump station locations in the Town of Lansing Service Area as well as potential future pump stations in the Town of Lansing Planning Area were examined in greater detail for the potential to contain prehistoric resources (Table 3, Appendix 5). In this examination, four pump stations have a low potential for prehistoric resources, two pump stations have a medium potential and four have a high potential. In addition, the entire DEIS Study Area was divided into sub -areas A thru V (Table 4, Appendix 5), and then subdivided again into smaller areas of which the potential and reported archeological sites were identified and described. There are several historic archeological sites along the highways in the DEIS Study Area consisting of foundations of mill sites, schoolhouses, and an occasional shop or dwelling. No standing historic archeological sites were noted. Table 1 in Appendix 5 summarizes the reported historic sites in the vicinity of the DEIS Study Area. The archeological potential of the DEIS Study Area was identified in Table 4, Appendix 5 for areas A thru V. However, it is likely that. most of the sites identified no longer exist, having been impacted by highway construction. There are no historic structures listed on either the State or National Register of Historic Places within the DEIS Study Area. No structures eligible for such listing, but not yet nominated were noted. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 '02 40 ' 3.11 Land Use and Zoning I pl- The following highlights the existing land use coverage and comprehensive plan policies of the DEIS Study Area within the Town of Dryden, Town of Lansing and the Village of Lansing. This information is relevant to the growth inducing impacts discussion in Section 6. Since growth inducing impacts are not relevant to the Village of Cayuga Heights for the reasons stated in Section 1.3, the Village is not included in the discussion in this section. In addition, elements of the respective zoning ordinances that are relevant to the potential extension of sanitary sewer are summarized. A geographic information system was used to examine the distribution of different property type classes within the DEIS Study Area portion of the Town of Dryden, and Town and Village of Lansing. These property type classifications are assigned by the Tompkins County Department of Assessment and are based on the `Property Type Classification and Ownership Codes' issued by the State Board of Real Property Services. This analysis was based on 2000 data received from Tompkins County. Table 8 summarizes these data. Table 8. Land Use Classification for Study Area Municipalities Agricultural Commercial Community Industrial Public Recreation and Residential Vacant Wild, rbresi not Services Services Entertainment Land Conservation classified Lands and Public Parks Town of [4049] [535.2] [2248.4] [68.7] [90.5] [1.7] [5009.91 [3490.9 [187.1 [546.5] Dryden (3.2%/) (42%� (17.9%� (0.60%) (0.7%� (0.0°� (39.8%) (27.7%) (1.5%) (43%) of [1146.8] [256.2] 583.61 [422.4] [207.81 [78.8] [3230.8] [2465.4 [248] [633.11 ITown lansing (12.7°� (2.8%) (6.4%) (47%) (2.3%) (0.9°� (35.7%) (27.2%) (0.3%) (7.0%) [38.0] [272.4] [265.1] [6.9] [377.61 (1.4%) (10.2%� (10.0%) (2.4%) (142% ) [23.7] [717.71 [812.7] [8.4] (0.9%� (27.0%i%) (30.6%� (0.3% ) [78.8] (3.0%) DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 41 N 3.11.1 Town of Dryden Figure 20 illustrates Town of Dryden land use patterns within the DEIS Study Area. The most prevalent land use is residential (39.8%), followed by vacant land (27.7%). These two land uses are distributed r relatively evenly throughout the Town. The third most prevalent land use occupying almost 18% of the total parcel area in the Town is `Community Services.' Much of this land is owned by Cornell University, such as the recreation area located along Fall Creek, north of Route 366. Currently, there is very little commercial development in the Town, occupying less than 5% of the parcel area. This commercial development is concentrated on the major highways such as Routes 79, 366, and 13. The Town of Dryden has a small amount (68.7 acres) of industrial development that is located along Route 13. There was only a minute amount of land classified as `Recreation and Entertainment' within the portion of the Town of Dryden that lies within the DEIS Study Area. The Town of Dryden is currently undertaking an update to its comprehensive plan; the plan currently in effect dates back to 1968. The Town of Dryden's Comprehensive Plan (1968) noted that continued change and substantial growth can be expected in Dryden in the next 25 years such that there will be an increase in the need and demand for public services. With respect to housing policy and objectives, the plan recommended that medium density housing, as well as the development of public or private water and sewer systems, should be encouraged in the Ithaca -Cortland corridor. This corridor was defined as a concentration of development running diagonally across the town that follows the major highway routes and includes Varna and Etna. The Comprehensive Plan also supported a recommendation of the Comprehensive Seweraee Studv (1965), prepared for the Joint Municipal Survey Committee of the Greater Ithaca Regional Area, that the town form sewer districts to address existing and expected sewerage problems. The plan states that "Such districts could include the villages and could contract with other municipalities for services or enter into agreements for intermunicipal cooperation." Figure 21 illustrates zoning in the Town of Dryden. Table 9 summarizes the zoning districts in the Town of Dryden and provides the corresponding densities for those districts. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 42 1 1 1 Table 9. Town of Dryden Zoning Districts and Densities M-A Manufacturing and 1 acre 1 acre Assembly 1 acre 1 acre Adult Uses (see zoning M-AA amendment for description) Low Density 30,000 20,000 RB Residential 30,000 20,000 Low Density R-B-1 Agricultural - Residential 1 30000 1 15000 Moderate Density R-C Agricultural - 2 30000 2 15000 Residential M * M # 1 30000 1 12000 R-D Higher Density 2 30000 2 12000 Agricultural - M M # Commercial - Residential Notes: 1= single-family dwelling 2= two family dwelling M = multi -family dwelling * 30,000 square feet and at least 3,000 s.f. of additional lot area per bedroom per unit for each dwelling unit. # The lot size must be increased by 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 3.11.2 Town of Lansing Land use in the Town of Lansing within the DEIS Study Area is illustrated by Figure 22. As in the Town of Dryden, the most prevalent land use is residential (35.7%) followed by vacant land (27.2%). These residential and vacant land uses are evenly distributed throughout the Town. The Town of Lansing has over 1,000 acres in agricultural land, significantly more than the Town of Dryden and Village of Lansing. There is more industrial land in the DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 43 that portion of the Town of Lansing within the DEIS Study Area than there is commercial. Industrial land comprises 422 acres or 4.7% of the total DEIS Study Area in the Town of Lansing. Based on a review of the 1994 Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan. the Town views growth within its municipality as inevitable and wishes to expand its tax base. It hopes to extend municipal sanitary sewer service, especially to those parts of the Town where there is municipal water supply, and views intermunicipal cooperation regarding sewer as a way to achieve maximum efficiency and cost savings. The following excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan provide a more detailed account of that policy direction. With respect to `Growth and Development' the Town "acknowledges its position as one of the fastest growing communities in the Tompkins County area. Lansing is amenable to the idea of an expanded tax base... New development should be encouraged to occur in areas where a larger ' population concentration will make the provision of public utilities practical and feasible." Under the category of "Sewer and Water Systems" the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan (1994) established the following policy: "Water and - sewer facilities are essential for sustained, concentrated development in the Town of Lansing. These vital services will have to be planned for, and eventually provided, in all areas where major growth activity is expected and desired or where improved sewage disposal facilities are already needed. Overall plans will be designed for the largest practical utility districts. The creation of smaller subdistricts, or service areas, and the actual timing of construction of water and sewerage lines will be related to current need, financial capability, and the Town's long-range plans for use of land." The following goals were defined for Sewer and Water Systems: ❑ Public water and sewer services available in those areas of the Town where the Comprehensive Plan indicates future development and growth, or where there currently exists a serious need to safeguard the environment ❑ Public utility systems that achieve maximum efficiency and cost savings through the collaborative effort of adjacent communities with common problems and needs The following objectives were defined for Sewer and Water Systems: DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 44 ❑ To encourage and support public sewage disposal facilities in all areas in the southern part of Town that currently have a public water supply ❑ To relate land use and development density regulations to the critical need for adequate sewage disposal facilities as well as to the availability of a public water supply ❑ To participate to the fullest extent in the establishment of intermunicipal sewer systems ❑ To provide for alternative sewage disposal systems in areas where the extension of existing systems is not practical or cannot be equitably arranged. Figure 23 illustrates zoning in the Town of Lansing. The Town of Lansing has a "Land Use Ordinance" last amended January 17, 2001. Table 10 summarizes the zoning districts and the corresponding densities of those zoning districts. Table 10. Town of Lansing Zoning Districts and Densities A 20,000 A 20,000 B1 Commercial, General Use, B 20,000/DU B 20.000/DU Mixed Use C 20,000 C Special Conditions IR Industrial/Research None Health Dept. Ll Lakeshore 40,000/DU 40,000/DU Ll Lake Frontage 40?000/DU 20,000/DU Rl Residential Low Density 40,,000/DU 40,000/DU Residential Moderate 20,000/DU A 20,000 R2 Density B 8,000/DU C 20,000 R3 Residential, Mixed -Use 40,000/DU 40,000/DU RA Rural Agriculture 40,000/DU 40,000/DU Notes: DU= Dwelling Unit A=1 or 2 dwelling units B= 3 or more dwelling units C=Nonresidential or mixed use development (1) Minimum lot size is one acre per Tompkins County Health Department DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 45 U 3.11.3 Village of Lansing Figure 24 illustrates land use in the Village of Lansing (note that all of the Village lies within the DEIS Study Area). Nearly one-third of the Village of Lansing within the DEIS Study Area is vacant land. The second most U prevalent land use is residential, comprising 27.0% or 717.7 acres. Compared to the Town of Lansing and Town of Dryden, the Village of Lansing has proportionately more commercial land; 10% of the Village. This commercial development is concentrated on either side of Triphammer Road, and includes the region's major shopping malls. A large portion of the Village is classified as `Public Service' which refers to the Ithaca -Tompkins Regional C Airport. Less than 1% of the Village is in the Village is `Wild, Forested and Conservation Lands and Public Parks' and `Recreation and Entertainment' ' classifications. Very little of the Village is in agricultural use (38 acres). Wastewater facilities are addressed in the overall policy framework presented in the Village of LansinL- Comprehensive Plan (1999). The Comprehensive Plan states that the Village recognizes its position as a growth center in Tompkins County but that it also believes that growth ' should be managed to preserve the existing character of the Village, open space and natural resources. The opening of Route 13 accelerated the rate of ' development, especially in the vicinity of North Triphammer Road/Route 13 intersection. That concentration of commercial and high density residential development is in contrast to the remainder of the Village in which the n Village strives to maintain a suburban/rural atmosphere. The "Goals" for "Community Facilities" included the following: "The Village should permit the extension of public sewers, where _ economically feasible, to areas of demonstrated need and allow private sewer (i facilities, which meet State and County standards, where costs of public L� sewer construction would be prohibitively high." "The Village should vigorously pursue adequate sewer capacity from both the City of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights in order to permit the development of vacant land parcels within the Village's existing sewer district." C Based on the foregoing, the Village of Lansing is supportive of the extension of public sewers to areas of need and understands the need to cooperate with surrounding municipalities to make the extension possible. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 46 Figure 25 illustrates zoning in the Village of Lansing. Table 11 summarizes the zoning districts in the Village of Lansing and provides the corresponding densities for those districts. Table 11. Village of Lansing Zoning Districts and Densities CHT Commercial High Traffic CLT Commercial Low Traffic 40.000 40,000 10,000 or 6,000 per 10,000 or 6,000 per use or tenant use or tenant 10,000 or 6,000 per 10,000 or 6,000 per use or tenant use or tenant 1 12000 1 60000 2 15000 2 90000 HDR High Density Residential M 6000 per M n/a 0 12000 0 60000 1 30000 1 60000 LDR Low Density Residential 2 40000 2 90000 0 30000 0 60000 1 20000 1 60000 MDR Medium Density Residential 2 25000 2 90000 0 20000 0 60000 RSH Research District 40,000 n/a Notes: DU: Dwelling Unit 1=One dwelling unit 2=Two dwelling units M= Multiple dwelling units 0= Other, no DW 3.11.4 Agricultural Districts As illustrated by Figure 26, portions of the DEIS Study Area lie within Tompkins County Agricultural District 1. Although not regulating development, Agricultural Districts are intended to help foster agricultural development and provide incentives for farmers to maintain lands in agricultural use. Table 12 summarizes the number of parcels and the acreage of land in Agricultural District 1 in each of the DEIS Study Area communities. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 47 Table 12 Summary of Land Enrolled in Agricultural District 1 Within the DEIS Study Area Town of Lansing 524 3,065 ' Town of Dryden 96 346 Village of Lansing 27 61 [,I Cornell Cooperative Extension provided data regarding agriculture in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden. These data are provided in Appendix 8. Note that their data is provided on a town -wide basis. These data show that both Lansing and Dryden have important agricultural sectors. However, most ' agriculture in both towns is concentrated outside of the DEIS Study Area. In order to obtain a more accurate understanding of agriculture within the DEIS Study Area, Cooperative Extension conducted a detailed survey of farms within that portion of the Towns of Dryden and Lansing in the DEIS Study Area. This survey is also found in Appendix 8. ` Within the Town of Lansing DEIS Study Area, there are currently nine active farms totaling 896 acres. This constitutes 7.4% of the 12,073 acres on 41 ( farms in the Agricultural District #1 in the entire Town of Lansing. According I to the Cornell Cooperative Extension, parcels that are no longer in active agricultural use are likely to be removed from Agricultural District #1 at the time of its next update. Six of the nine farms are rented out, one is partially rented out and two are farmed by their owners. All of the farms are used to grow crops, those being alfalfa, corn, soybeans, buckwheat, oats, barley, hay, grains and vegetables. Within the Town of Dryden DEIS Study Area, there are currently 12 active farms totaling 1006 acres. This constitutes 11.2% of the 9,004 acres on 26 farms in Agricultural District #1 in the entire Town of Dryden. Eight of the twelve farms are rented. All of the farms are used to grow crops, those being corn, soybeans, wheat, buckwheat, alfalfa, oats, hay, barley, grains, grass, rye n and vegetables. u3.12 Transportation Services ' Existing traffic conditions in the DEIS Study Area are modeled on an ongoing basis by the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council. The Council DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 48 has divided the County into Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). TAZs in the DEIS Study Area are illustrated by Figure 27. Because the results of this modeling are only relevant to the induced growth analysis in Section 6 of this DEIS, and because they are best understood in the context of comparing existing conditions with potential future conditions, the discussion of existing transportation conditions is found in Section 6.4.4. ' Public transportation in Tompkins County is provided by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT). TCAT operates a fleet of approximately 50 buses on 44 routes serving 2.7 million riders annually. In addition to ' regular route stops, service is offered at 16 Park and Ride lots. Door to door paratransit service is offered to individuals with disabilities. 3.13 Demographics Table 13, "Population Trends" illustrates the change in population for the ' years 1980, 1990 and 2000 for the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Village of Lansing. Note that this table provides data for the entire municipality, not just that portion within the DEIS Study Area, because that ' is how the census data is organized. Since these data are relevant only to the induced growth discussion in Section 6, the Village of Cayuga Heights is not included. The Town of Dryden has consistently had the largest population, ' followed by the Town of Lansing and the Village of Lansing. According to the 2000 census, the Town of Dryden has 50% .of the population for the three municipalities, followed by the Town of Lansing (38%), and the Village of ' Lansing (12%). All three municipalities gained population over the two decade time period. Of these, only the Town of Lansing's rate of population growth from 1990-2000 increased from that of 1980 to 1990. The Town of Lansing's rate of population growth (13.2%) was the highest of any of the DEIS Study Area municipalities during the 1990-2000 time period. During the period 1980-1990, both the Town of Lansing (11.8%) and the Town of Dryden (9.0%) outpaced the County (8.1%) in terms of growth. During 1990- 2000, the Village and Town of Lansing's rates of growth, 4.2% and 13.2% respectively, outpaced the County's (2.6%). DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 49 Source: U.S. Census Data. Another way to consider the demographic character of Study Area municipalities is to consider trends in the number of housing units. Table 14 summarizes the number of housing units in each municipality from 1980 to 2000. Table 14 Housing Unit Trends 1980 — 2000 Town of Dryden 4,705 5,037 7 5,781 14.8 Town of Lansing 3,577 3,812 6.5 4,634 21.6 Village of Lansing 1,501 1,508 0.5 1,705 13.1 Tompkins County 29,522 33,338 12.9 38,625 15.9 Note: The data in Table 14 is for the entire municipality, not just that portion of the municipality within the Study Area. Source: U.S. Census Data The average household size in 2000 for the municipalities ranges from a low of 2.06 persons in the Village of Lansing to a high of 2.43 persons in the Town ' of Dryden (Table 15). The Town of Lansing falls in between with an average household size of 2.33 persons. The Town of Lansing had an average household size on par with the County average, while the Town of Dryden ' had a larger household size and the Village of Lansing had a smaller household size. Table 15. Year 2000 Average Household Size Town of Dryden 2.43 - Town of Lansing 2.33 Village of Lansing 2.06 Tompkins County 2.32 Source: U.S. Census Data DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 50 3.14 Fiscal Conditions Table 16 summarizes budget, tax rates and real property information for the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Village of Lansing and for the three school districts in the municipalities. Note that these figures are for the entire municipalities and school districts, not just the DEIS Study Area portions. Since these data are relevant only to the induced growth discussion in Section 6, the Village of Cayuga Heights is not included. Municipal and school budget information is current as of 2002, and tax rate information as of 2001. Real property information is current as of January 1, 2001. Of the three municipalities, the Town of Lansing had the largest budget of $5,408,603, compared to the Town of Dryden ($4,739,822) and Village of Lansing ($3,610,480). The municipal tax rate ranged from $1.53/1000 in the Town of Lansing to $1.70/1000 in the Town of Dryden and Village of Lansing. According to the Tompkins County Assessment Department, the total value of all property was $529,856,867 for the Town of Dryden, $669,019,261 for the Town of Lansing, and $314,984,638 for the Village of Lansing. Of this total value, the following value is attributed to nonresidential parcels: $214,129,667 (Town of Dryden), $381,941,560 (Town of Lansing), and $229,527,538 (Village of Lansing). For the Village of Lansing, it should be noted that the proportion of nonresidential property value is quite high signifying that the Village of Lansing has a large percentage of commercial property. The school budgets for the Ithaca City School District, Lansing Central School District and the Dryden Central School District are $68,242,650, $17,362,209 and $22,597,415, respectively. The school tax rates range from 19.50/1000 in Lansing Central School District to 22.00/1000 in the Dryden Central School District. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 51 Table 16. Existing Fiscal Conditions in the Study Area Municipalities and School Districts. Total Municipal Expenditure Tax Rate Total Value of Real Property Total Nonresidential Real Property Value Average Value of All Parcels Average Value Nonresidential Parcels Total School Budget Expenditure Tax Rate 3.15 School Districts 4,739,822 5,408,603 3,610,480 1.70/1000 1.53/1000 1.70/1000 529,856,867 669,019,261 314,984,638 214,129,667 381,941,560 229,527,538 117,903 201,694 345,000 130,170 428,186 655,793 Area School Districts 68,242,650 17,362,209 22,597,415 19.94/1000 19.50/1000 22.00/1000 The DEIS Study Area lies within three school districts: the Lansing Central School District, the Dryden Central School District and the Ithaca City School District. The boundaries of these districts are illustrated by Figure 28. Historical enrollments for each district over the last ten years are presented in Tables 17, 18 and 19. Note that in some cases the data is presented for the calendar year, while in others it is presented for the school year. This is a function of how the data is kept and provided by each school district. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 52 I Table 17. Historic Enrollment for the Lansing Central School District 1989 1,051 n/a 1990 n/a n/a 1991 n/a n/a i 1992 1.105 n/a 1993 1,097 -8 ' 1994 1,161 64 1995 1,196 35 1996 1,223 27 1997 1.323 100 C; 1998 1.352 29 1999 1,382 30 2000 1,383 1 ' 2001 1,342 -41 Table 18. Historic Enrollment for the Dryden Central School District 1990 2,227 n/a 1991 2.227 0 1992 2,234 7 r 1993 2,207 -27 j 1994 2.190 -17 ` 1995 2,191 1 1996 2,221 30 1997 2,207 -14 1998 2.142 -65 1999 2,142 0 2000 2,095 -47 -_ 2001 2,038 -57 �I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 53 ITable 19. Historic Enrollment for the Ithaca City School District rROMM • • I ' Mi 1992-93 6,096 n/a 1993-94 6,074 -22 1994-95 6,145 71 1995-96 6,113 -32 1996-97 6,048 -65 ' 1997-98 5,994 -54 1998-99 5,899 -95 1999-00 5,820 -79 2000-01 5,702 -118 ' 2001-02 5,694 -8 3.16 Community Services 3.16.1 Fire Protection Table 20 shows those fire departments that primarily serve the DEIS ' Study Area municipalities. In addition, these fire departments also participate in the New York State Fire Mutual Aid Plan by which a fire department will assist with calls originating outside their formal service.area. i Table 20. Fire Departments Serving the DEIS Study Area Municipalities. Town of Dryden Brooktondale, Dryden, Etna, Freeville, McLean, Varna Town of Lansing Lansing Village of Lansing Lansing 1 The following summarizes fire department resources in terms of staff, volunteers, equipment, response time and the location of fire station(s). Note that data has not been provided for every fire department in table 18 because some departments did not provide data, despite repeated requests to do so. Dryden Fire Department The Dryden Fire Department serves the Town of Dryden and its station is located at 26 North Street, Dryden. The Department does DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 54 not have any paid employees but does have 40-60 active volunteers. It also has three (3) full-time and two (2) part-time paramedics. In terms of equipment, the Department has two (2) Class -A pumpers, one (1) 85 foot aerial truck with pump, one (1) 2,000 gallon tanker, one (1) heavy rescue truck with auto extrication and three (3) advance life support ambulances. The average response time is four (4) to five (5) minutes. Freeville Fire Department The Freeville Fire Station is located at 21 Union Street, Freeville. This Department serves the Village of Freeville and just outside the Village (roughly 20 square miles). The Department has roughly sixty (60) volunteers on its roster. The Department has one (1) pumper, one (1) engine/heavy rescue truck, one tanker, and one (1) light rescue truck. The average response time is six minutes and fourteen seconds from the time that pagers go off until the first truck arrives at the scene. Lansing Fire Department The Lansing Fire Department has four stations located at the following addresses: `Central' (80 Ridge Road, Lansing), `Station 3' (1235 Ridge Road, Lansing), `Station T (1200 Auburn Road, Lansing), `Station 5' (119 Oakcrest, Ithaca). The Department serves the Town and Village of Lansing and has fifty-four (54) active volunteer responders plus administrative staff. In terms of equipment, the Department has three (3) engine pumpers, three (3) pumper tankers, one (1) 100 foot aerial platform, one (1) heavy rescue, one (1) medical rescue to EMS, one (1) utility pick-up connected to watercraft, one (1) chiefs response vehicle and four (4) first response ALS vehicles. Response time (including mutual aid [; response) is 9.4 minutes from the call or 4.6 minutes from the alarm. McLean Fire Department D The McLean fire station is located on 2 Stevens Road, McLean. It serves parts of the Towns of Dryden and Groton. While the fire station is not staffed, its volunteers include twenty-five (25) firefighters and C' six (6) EMTs. Included are a Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, First and Second Assistant Fire Chiefs, Fire Captain and Lieutenant, Rescue Captain and Lieutenant, and Fire Police Captain and Lieutenant. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 55 The Department has two (2) pumpers, one (1) motorized water tanker, one (1) brush/utility truck, and one (1) EMS vehicle. The average response time from the time of activation from County Dispatch to arrival on scene is 7.52 minutes. 3.16.2 Police Protection The New York State Police provide police service to all of New York State and have a station located at 1850 Dryden Road in Freeville. This station has one (1) captain, six (6) sergeants, four (4) investigators, twenty-two (22) troopers, and six (6) civilian employees. Table 21 below illustrates the patrol area of each of the officers. Table 21. New York State Police Officer Patrol Area for the Freeville Station. i NO -me (1) Captain Cortland, Tompkins, Tioga (3) Zone Sergeants Cortland, Tompkins, Tioga (3) Station Sergeants Tompkins County (4) Investigators Tompkins County (22) Troopers Tompkins County Troopers are on patrol and respond to calls for police service. Officers may be called in to serve outside their patrol area on an as needed basis. The Tompkins County Sheriff's Department has a station located at 779 Warren Road in the Village of Lansing. One (1) captain, five (5) sergeants, twenty (20) deputies, and four (4) investigators serve all of Tompkins County. The study area corresponds to Patrol Zones 325 and 326 of the Tompkins County Sheriffs Department. Additional police departments are found in the Villages of Dryden and Cayuga Heights and the City of Ithaca, and there are also police forces associated with Cornell University and Ithaca College. Collectively, these forces add more than 100 officers to the regional total. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02- rj I� 56 ' 3.16.3 Emergency Services ' First response EMS services are provided by the fire departments. In addition, the Town of Dryden and Bangs Ambulance Service provide ' ambulance service. The Town of Dryden ambulance service serves the Town of Dryden and has three (3) full-time and two (2) part-time paramedics, as well as twenty (20) volunteers and three (3) vehicles. The Dryden Ambulance Service operates out of the Dryden fire station on 26 North Street, Dryden. Bangs Ambulance provides twenty -four-hour emergency medical services to the Town and Village of Lansing. The ambulance base is located at .626 West State Street in the City of Ithaca. In addition, from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., there is an ambulance stationed on Oakcrest Road in the Village of Lansing. Bangs Ambulance has approximately 50 staff members comprised of thirty-seven (37) crew members, ten (10) supervisors, a Director of Operations, a Vice President and a President. Eight (8) fully equipped advanced life support ambulances and two (2) advanced life support emergency response vehicles are operated. The average response time to the Village. of Lansing is three (3) to five (5) minutes and eight (8) to ten (10) minutes in the Town of Lansing. ' 3.16.4 Recreation For the purpose of this analysis it was assumed that residents in the DEIS Study Area municipalities would have access t Li P o parks throughout Tompkins County. The amount of developed parks in iTompkins County was derived from two digital mapping layers obtained from Tompkins County Planning Department in 2001. The locations of parks and recreation facilities are illustrated by Figure 29. This information was queried for State-owned parks as well as ' developed parks. The latter was derived from a land use and land cover digital coverage published by Tompkins County Planning Department in June 2000. Tompkins County developed this data set from the interpretation and delineation of land use and land cover from Color Infrared Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles. This analysis was concerned with the amount of land classified as "Op" and "Ot" in the study area municipalities. The definitions of these classifications are as follows: 1 I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 57 I `Op' (Parks): Public parks as well as Cornell Plantations including Ll picnic areas, walking/hiking/running trails, playgrounds, manicured lawns, and landscaped areas within park boundaries. D `Ot' (Stadiums/track/ball fields): Sporting fields that may or may not be associated with schools and parks. Baseball diamonds, tennis courts, running track, soccer and football fields with goal posts, swimming facilities. Motor tracks included. Table 22 shows the acreage of State-owned parks and land classified as "Op" and "Ot" in Tompkins County municipalities. Table 22. Acreage of Tompkins County Parks and Land Town of Lansing 24.07 73.24 Village of Lansing 0 15.68 Town of Ulysses 720.02 145.09 Town of Groton 0 33.68 Town of Dryden 193.75 61.92 Village of Dryden 0 13.74 Village of Freeville 0 5.11 Town of Ithaca 874.1 296.23 City of Ithaca 70.3 255.65 Village of Cayuga Heights 0 14.03 Town of Enfield 773.09 33.31 Town of Newfield 5694.08 23.75 Town of Danby 173.07 3.9 Town of Caroline 0 9.65 Total 8,522.48 984.98 The Town of Lansing owns and maintains a total of four parks that fall within the DEIS Study Area. These parks are: DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 58 1 Ludlowville Park, located in the hamlet of Ludlowville: Facilities at this park include playground, gazebo and picnic tables. A scenic overlook within the park overlooks the Salmon Creek Falls. ■ Myers Point Park, located off of Marina Drive along the shore of Cayuga Lake: Facilities at this park include swimming areas, playground, volleyball net, basketball court and horseshoe pits. A concession stand operates during the summer season (May 15 through September 15). ■ Town Barn Fields, located on Town Barn Road: This open space area (; is used primarily for athletic team practices and offers open fields. ' Town Hall Fields, located on Auburn Road: This park area offers open fields for athletic team practices, a pavilion, playground, batting cages and basketball court. The Town of Dryden maintains four parks. ' Montgomery Park and "Village Green" located in the Village of Dryden. Montgomery Park is a small park with a playground and gazebo. The Village Green has several benches and a fountain. • Mill Street Park in the Village of Freeville. This park has a picnic area, a playground and a streamside footpath to a fishing area. • Dryden Lake Park at Dryden Lake. This is a moderately sized park with picnic tables, a pavilion, a playground, fishing access, motorless boat access and a walking trail. • The "Creative Playground" in Etna is a small playground The Village of Lansing owns and maintains the Dankert Park. This park has a pavilion, an all-purpose field, a playground and basketball courts. 3.16.5 Utilities Existing utilities within the DEIS Study Area are discussed as follows: ■ Gas & Electric: Throughout the DEIS Study Area, the sole provider of gas and electric service is New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG). DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 59 I _i Telephone: Throughout the DEIS Study Area, the sole telephone system provider is Verizon. Although there are various options for telephone service throughout the area, Verizon is the only company -' that provides the equipment and lines required to provide the service. I ■ Time Warner is the sole provider of cable services in the DEIS Study Area. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 "A N E ROAD w s D A� RD =14ASBU :4 Town of Lansing r , b� T n of Lansi 222 W) 34 o 41B Tow*nf Groton 34 .3; 7 11-1.1116' 4B f Ul ERR— R D a of Lansing 13 614'i �D •U-1 .1qOAr L •I �Fi 13 13 15" V" A EIBIL-1 vv IvE 0 DR ",BONAX, 0 Village c . . . . . . . . . . . . !!(CREST, ROAD ---Eayuga Hemh A 9 366 T own of D r y d n V j .R == City of I -)a 71 327 To - Zt— Town of 79 613 Village of Lansing Nk 13 Town of Carolin 366 own of nv --5 Town of Dryden A, iT wn of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary Municipal Boundary D 0 2 4 a Study Area Miles State Highway Study Area Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area 100-Foot Contours 0 3 0 20-Foot Contours 0 GE . Roads 1 90,000 74 State Highway J aE % Miles CJ 10 County Highway 0 0.5 1 2 Local Road Cayuga Lake THE CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conolly Ra n Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street July 12, 2002 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 PA ES Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Figure 9. 'Topography. trigineers; / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. Figure 9 GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Municipal Boundary Minimum Depth to Bedrock (inches) 0 0 9 12 14 21 22 24 25 26 0 27 30 38 ® 42 - 47 Roads GState Highway County Highway Local Road . THE Chazen COMPArTIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants w e 34 34B s Town of Lansing .E Rod -- T n of Lansi R 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 I Town`f Groton o o < 2 O p o T f Uly 413 a of Lansing 13 RIZONAtN p r. _._ - 96 i Q T 13 f 13 r Village o Q E yuga Heig is 79 366 Town of Dry,d Ei City of- i 13 p 327 To I I th Town of ` 79 os� - Q Q F� 13 6B Town of Carolin Village of Lansing a o w n o f a`" 366 Town of Dryden � Q T wn of Newfiei 34 1 Lj \ Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Study Area m V SrE�ENSON RO J?� E R o e Mlles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area 79 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Ni Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Created by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect April 26, 2002 Snk: Figure 10. Minimum Depth to Bedrock. Various; see maps ftj— e: Figure 10 I J G J = ROAD Q01etT�GP i'. ♦ - X - ROAD • cariz�st :;sip; ";� WA 34 S. DICK Oi • 4 ' Municipal Boundary Minimum Depth to Water Table (inches) 0 - 4 6 0 10 20 30 - 36 Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Ra en COMPA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIs Consultants �r 34 ` :RMnJN D Town of Lansing SC H A Village of Lansing Town of Dryden 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 79 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. ToWn of Lansi IF UI Village c'� ayuga Hei hts 79 — City of l -lac; 327 T o Town of ►7 -ij f I 222 4 Town : f Groton Vlla a of Lansing 13 3 13 366 Town of Dryd ,th 1 79 Town of Caro/in own of`ba_NXo}r wn of Newfiel 34 1 1 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 _ ' Study Area Mlles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect, Figure 11. Minimum Depth to Water Table. o—d by: Carol Conolly u,r.: July 12, 2002 Stak: Various; see maps Figure 11 ri 11.- -,-- I-..--- - LER -• - _ GRE O OL� ;P` .BOWER'.} ' -- - - - •ROAD.- 34 QolRr'po0 1- P_ -i" - A�IL��`FRI NpNII Town of Lansing A. -T�S_iAit' `..4'.:1 �:� _ -ROAD.' 7 y •-. •!.: _' p'"^ _ - O:, _���: .. ASBU >, ;C�•l �llG�*,iraflL:. -yy)RUN- -- R WAGION'Ra.� 'YCc r- 'rjjj� _ o 34 _ _ _ _ •9J'. !f _i. Z, ',gg�HERRY�.•: [ ryONfr•ONk o ° sNy }• - - " _BURDICK HLL' 'ROp+ - - - °FR (`i'UhAC In.1 '�.,�'. _ •.7U -CREST' R_.•�' _ .','V; H _ _ :c - - '_ HOAr ETNA'"i:• ROAD 44 a 00 3= j 13 Village of Lansing Municipal Boundary Surfiicial Geology Recent alluvium Kame deposits Kame moraine Lacustrine sand (` ® Lacustrine silt and clay I 0 Outwash sand and gravel 0 Till _ Till moraine ' Water Bedrock Outcrop Roads ' 9 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Chap COMPAf ES ' Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Town of Dryden `�OhHI.4' 9 1 : 90,000 a. ROAD - O t -, ROAD�.'2I¢ #0 Miles s ���� • ;. +<� 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 NICE �OROq� GENLo , i DER SOOOM .ROA � v0 • _ c Z 79 S . aogo . D _ CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone;(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. N w— pE WIA T n of La 34 46 T f Ul _� 89 ill 96 Village c Cayuga Hemht 79 City of 1 iac 327 To / t h Town ofi. 1 \ � 222 \ 4 Town f Groton 14B e of Lansing 13 13 366 Town of Dryd n ra 61113 13 Town of Carolin own of in of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary 2 4 8 State Highway Miles a Study Area Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect Figure 12. Surficial Geology. Geakd by: Carol Conolly oae: July 12, 2002 Srak: Various; see maps Figure 12 `eoN ROAD �Y 413 Municipal Boundary Roads _ yn �s State Highway County Highway :CilTUGf1Tllft.''; Local Road Soil Associations - Aurora -Angola 34 — Aurora -Farmington -Manlius Benson-Wassaic Cazenovia-Ovid Ellery-Erie-Alden 0 Erie -Langford GLL, Hamlin, fan -Palmyra Hamlin -Teel Howard-Arkport Howard-Chenango Howard -Palmyra - Howard -Phelps _ Hudson -Dunkirk — Hudson -Rhinebeck — Kendaia-Lyons Langford -Erie ® Langford -Howard Lansing-Conesus Lordstown-Arnot [� Lordstown-Langford Lordstown-Mardin Lordstown-Mardin-Langford 1 : 90,OOD ® Mardin-Langford Miles Mardin-Volusia 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Ovid -Ilion Palmyra ® Rhinebeck -Niagara 0 Sloan-Madalin-Fonda Sloan -Teel, alluvial land 0 Volusia-Mardin THE Chap COMPAI ES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Lansing Town of Lansing I� m 'Z ROA *' S sA,Vb &ILL p0 79 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. N wE ��s//s Town of Dryden •, •ry �ioA6• �. ,? �� Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. ToWn of Lan,si f U vmc3ye of -� �OuHelghhts _ City of I -ma 327 To Town of irf� 222 \ Town If Groton 14 Ice of Lansing �q C13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ Ith 79 Town of Carotin own of�\5-711 ?,nf Newfiel 34 I 0 2 4 8 �i Municipal Boundary Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Created by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Dare. July 12, 2002 Figure 13. Soil Associations. S k: Various; see maps Figure 13 0 Study Area Municipal Boundary Protected Streams —�--- Unprotected Streams Lakes and Ponds Roads ,s State Highway County Highway Local Road "M 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 Town of Lansing Town of Dryden Chan CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: ' 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street COMPANIES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIs Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. 77 � n of LansiA I Town if Groton of Lansing r; Town of Dry 13 Town of Carolin own of T wn of Newfie1 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Lam` Study Area Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Geated by: Draft Environmental ImDact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Imarovement Proiect ° July 12, 2002 Figure 14. Water Resources. =ak: Various; see maps Figure 14 J w GREEN r0 U°UO BOWER ROgp - - - - - t ROAD 34 3 p a TIAWQU! IR ° 010 O ROAD 91 9 O 90 ASBUR i o m TE NO 110 R RUN a 8 •"c_'�"..` IAKE 14 WATERWAGON RB 'Y 1r'rT' mm U R o _-" 34 D ? s0 pD� 9P HERRIA ROAR Fy 99 a o .� 7PRIZON D y T SNYI BURDICK HILL RN s O - ° r YT RD HOKM i„OAKCREST R{DRIVE R9 � Dr 0 o DART � 1 : 90,000 Village of Lansing Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Municipal Boundary FEMA Floodplain Category 100-Year Floodplain; No Base Flood Elevations Determined - 100-Year Floodplain; Base Flood Elevations Determined 0 Area Outside the 100 and 500-Year Floodplains Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Gan COMPAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Town of Lansing �I O i; BOAC ETNA ° a ROAD DWOODrA P O PQ `r�L �ER SOD 79 H fL m P S ROgO 0 � a z Town of Dryden CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. To�*n of Lansi 9 Town �f Groton 4B j f Uly 89 a of Lansing 13 QR _ Village City of I 7aca,— 1� 7 Town ofhe •. Town of Dry Town of Carolin own of`���� lTw�n of Newfiel 34 ® Study Area Municipal Boundary Area shown on large-scale map 0 2 4 8 State Highway Miles Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area C—IM by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect D.I.: July 12, 2002 Figure 15. FEMA Floodplains. S k: Various; see maps Figure 15 W �I E GREEN O UpLp BOWER R ROADOgp 34 - _ 413o $ - P o A p pp2 9 ASBURV F m g :,'C�L7 ilG^I ilk _ JE R WATERWAGON RB h Z I .0 = 34 g r qo turc= p ao S D 90 IDL RD w N%HERR1'a to Fy HRIZON D p, 91 BURDICKAl HILL RD5 A s y0 °ER S' G� M g�T RD -_ t'.; A BOMAX 1 : 90,000 OAKCREST R DRIVE '.�.' _ a O 0 DART OF Miles _ Village of Lansing Municipal Boundary Aquifer type Unconfined: Alluvial Sand and Gravel Unconfined: Deltaic Sand and Gravel 0 Unconfined: Outwash Sand and Gravel _ Unconfined: Kame Sand and Gravel - Confined: Sand and Gravel ® Unknown Till and Bedrock Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Cbap COMPA91ES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Town of Lansing O ROAE 6 /Town of Dryden .m STEVENSON ROAD < g ' po 0 o aaq 4US p O GEQ" = RDPO 2 u `=ER SL-_ F` a O � CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi l 4B T f U l y 89 96 Village o ' ayuga He' t 79 City of I a 327 To c Town Of 1 � 3 222 � Town 1f Groton 413 °J Ina a of Lansing 13 13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ Ith f� 79 Town of Carotin 1 own of l wn of Newfiel 34 Lj Study Area MMunicipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown on large-scale map Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental ImDact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 16. Aquifers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 sow: Various; see maps Figure 16 1 1 U L BC 4B -- - QO, Qp1H{ �0P RE RU "Cf17 `i7Gt! I `17� l ; 'LAKE R 3 •'-- L N i �s = 1 : 90,000 _ Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Study Area Municipal Boundary ® NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands Roads �s State Highway County Highway Local Road TH E cn PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants I N 4 h "RNIKUN IR D O \ LJ Lr •a Q 9 O O P DAD WG-1 a F � ASBURt' T D A WATERWAGONRB •` w m rrT WG-20 a U 9 1lU` P D TC CLL P 5 n LLL RO� 0 4 r a yP a-'tHERRY� POADff �y N ON D1 0 O URDICK HILL RC+ ORIZ Z y0 SNypER ROA �T RD TA-7 IP p BOMAx OAKCREST R DRNE ?, Nq 9 � o DART Of 90 I Village of Lansing Town of Lansing 1 A-2 c TA-1 O OA1 r• ETNA TA-6 R T1 13 `TA-9 TA-13 p i o n �D STEVENSOH ROAD t ` O p o D ELLIS o r,E I� = ROAO > P SNro NILL P I o �Fo CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Town of Dryden RO, ben m 79 p s Z ROgp- s r S= P D Z O Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. 1 T Lvn of Lansi 34 34B ��T of Uty � ss trills, 96 m a rrldyu ur 13 Cayu a Heights Wa 79 I CI ity of 1 sac TolVP'dt lth Town of Town Jf Groton of Lansing Town of Dry E 13 Town of Carolin own o f :azM 1Tw of Newfiel 34 Study Area Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown on large-scale map Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wetlands. Q—t� by: Carol Conolly Dale: July 12, 2002 Suk: Various; see maps Figure 17 0 - U A- Roads / UNA-2 13 State Highway = { N County Highway =-__ _ ^� UNAI 4 Local Road Municipal Boundary -__ NA; Unique Natural Areas = •Y __ _ _ _ `'.:' Site Code, Site Name _ v:NA_ UNA-101, Newman Tract I UNA-102, Renwick Slope r . UNA-103, McKinneys Twin Glens and Lake C G12"UGI I✓1KE ; , I UNA-104, Palmer Woods UNA-106, Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary UNA-107, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code TA9)FA 34 UNA-108, Monkey Run . ,. UNA-109, Fall Creek Hemlock Grove UNA-110, Etna Bird Sanctuary (Etna Marsh) I I UNA-124, Frost Ravine - .` U -� UNA-126, Ellis Hollow Swamp UNA-127, Poison Preserve and Snyder Hill UNA-130, Fall Creek Valley, Ithaca 0 UNA-133, Thomas Road Wetlands t' UNA-157, Cooks Comer Gully O UNA-24, Lake Cliffs, North of Myers Point 0 UNA-28, Ludlowville Woods UNA-52, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code WG14) UNA-53, Portland Point Quarry UNA-54, Minnegar Brook Woods UNA-55, Lower Salmon Creek UNA-63, Shurger Glen UNA-64, Lake Cliffs, South of Portland t -{ UNA-65, Head Comers Wetland 0 UNA-66, Cornell Ponds #1 and DEC Mapped (Code WG21) UNA-67, Dryden -Lansing Swamp UNA-71, Mill Dam Marsh, Freeville UNA-83, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code TA4) UNA-85, DEC Mapped Wetland (Codes TA2 and TA3) UNA-86, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code TA5) UNA-87, Fringed Gentian Meadow UNA-88, Airport Ponds, Wetland UNA-89, Lake Cliffs, McKinney's Point to Bolton Point UNA-90, Esty's Glen THE RCOMan � PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants N w_(�E 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 I �t i3� F71- UNA-157 i 79 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi 34 4B T f Ul, 89 96 Village 1 Cayuga He. 1h 79 City of 1 iac 327 To I !th Town of „'e7. \, Town o In f Newfiel 34 222 Town I Groton of Lansing 13 i 13 Town of Dryd ,n Town of Carolin q Study Area Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown on large-scale map Mlles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Disclaimer: Unique Natural Area boundaries were delineated by field biologists based on a review of air photographs, digital GIS base map data (roads, building footprints, 20-foot contours and streams) and field visits. Unique Natural Area boundaries are approximate and should be used for general planning purposes only. As a practical matter, Tompkins County does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information portrayed. The end -user of this map agrees to accept the data "as -is" with full knowledge that errors and omissions may exist, and to hold harmless the County for any damages that may result from inappropriate use of this map. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 19. Unique Natural Areas. Created by: Carol Conolly July 12, 2002 scab: Various; see maps Figure 19 fAN� w� -E s 1 : 65,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Land Use Unknown Agricultural - Commercial l Community Services Industrial Public Services ® Recreation & Entertainment (� Residential Vacant Land ® Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks Roads OState Highway County Highway Local Road IT -_-L�ROAC ii ETNA Iir—= �7:I_ i•" qM , ROAD i t Chazen CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street COMPARES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. r T n of L'ansiri , 222 34 4B Town f Groton 4B T IF Uly I 89 Villa e of Lansing 13 96 13 ( � �, • 13 -� Village Cayuga He,g 79 366 . yTown of Dryd \ City of I �a \ 327 To Ith ++ Town of 13 Town. of Carolin 1 own o. f"' y T wn of Newfie.l 34 Municipal Boundary O 4 2 0 4 Study Area Boundary , Area shown on large-scale map Miles — State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Created by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project July 12, 2002 smie: Figure 20. Town of Dryden Land Use. Various; see maps. Figure 20 N W—v�-E s 1 : 65,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Zoning District 0 Manufacturing and Assembly _ Adult Uses Low Density Agricultural - Residential C] Low Density Residential Moderate Density Agricultural - Residential _ Higher Density Agricultural -Commercial -Residential Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Ra c�2PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants ECUs o a o° ,,GEC IDHOLLOW K !� O O ' M ROA D ROAD r �1 < Jam SNYD F1ILL �DROgO GEN(�O p x to a�R DWO D LA y�ER SODOM ROA t m M m 79 z r r 2 o o° a ? CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Town of i = State Highway QStudy Area Boundary OMunicipal Boundary Area shown on large-scale map Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Imarovement Proiect Figure 21. Town of Dryden Zoning. Carol Conolly Dale: July 12, 2002 Scak: Various; see maps Figure 21 N. } W Qi y T LE �Q� 1-UQ GREEN , p BOER I _ _ OAD ROAD _ 4BT_._ { - o ioGE' r ' 7Y T n of Lansirl p� �� 222 OPY pAD. IQ. 34 4 Qo*Aj „Atd$URN' RL F:ERUVIL ' _ 4B 'Z ' 7 t�i YR O t Town Jf Groton NKLl _F ,3 - " 4B p m, , rn T f Ul y o Z o _ �Ita a of Lansing s p �i 89 13 -� GOAD (1 `Z -/ z— _'tr 96 1 : 50 000 ul ASBIJ . -i = o — 13 13 +, �- may- , �,� m p Village o Li ayuga Hei, t ' �� =_U �� ;_{ 79 366 Town of Dryd \ Miles 0 3 6 12 TFT u n f�O,q(S' D--� = D_ City of I iaca� RE S - � � ���=•���=327 u IRUN EP m To Ith - -+ AI RWAGOpI, yj° / ;::. - Z _ Town of LAKE79 U 7. O ai: - LI U- 613 ' Study Area f:f ,. Town of C a r o t n _.. �<_ m r 13 m r fn p s own of Land Userta�y s—� (^°� n Lr 0 Unknown.::.., ._ m.; 34 _ wn of Newfiel ' 0 Agricultural �,;o_ Municipal Boundary 1 - Commercial: ILI:�ERRY',I wF20AQ 2 0 2 4 B O Study Area Boundary ' Community Services N— co { p Area shown on large-scale map t� tY q}?I Q �i .SNYp Miles � = 0 yQ FR.; - -State Highway Industrial = I Public Services r� ROAD Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area ' ® Recreation & Entertainment 0 Residential 0 Vacant Land ' - Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks Roads 13 State Highway ' County Highway Local Road THE4aled by: Gan CHAZEN ENGINEERING &LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement:Carol conolly Ca ital District Office: New En I Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Imorovement Proiect P Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: England Office: North Country Office: COMPA I ES 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street July 12, 2002 Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone: 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 sole: Engineers / Surveyors Figure 22. Town of Lansing Land Use. ' 9• Y Phone: (781) 556-1037 9 g Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 22 J 1 : 50,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Zoning District Commercial, General and Mixed Use Industrial / Research Lake Frontage 9 Lakeshore Residential, Low Density (� Residential, Moderate Density Residential, Mixed -Use ® Rural Agricultural Roads ,s State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Ra en PA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants v 9 Q� 6: � WATERWAGOiJ R: y O of z o _ m o > � D O n m m 1 I Cr) r � —PHERRY' I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi 4B T . f Ul.yst4 89 ) CIA Town bf Groton of Lansing Village o 79 C i hts 366 Town of Dryd n City of I aca� 327 To I Ith Town of `, Ta rr Town of Carolin 1 own of�_n /W1 f Newfie► 34 M Municipal Boundary L� O Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown an large-scale map Mlles ! State Highway index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project. Figure 23. Town of Lansing Zoning. Q-t" by: Carol Conolly July 12, 2002 Sul.: Various; see maps Figure 23 w O x .. THE Own COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants 1 : 30,000 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 4UTGM I BURDICK`(Il 11HIII I` ROAD._:,_ I__ I .cam LAIrr 1, 1 I \ Land Use 0 Unknown Agricultural - Commercial Community Services Industrial Public Services ® Recreation & Entertainment Residential Vacant Land _ Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks Roads Gs State Highway County Highway Local Road CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: 'New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. 1 ToWn of Lansi Town 3f Groton `�� 4B T - f Uly 89 Villa a of Lansing 13 96 13 13 Cayuga He--gh 79 366 Town of Dryd City of 17a 327 Tow I t h\ Town of ile� `\ •,�� r 0 Town: of Carolin Twn1 own of \5 of Newfie/ 34 C3 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 g �` 0 Study Area Boundary Mlles - State Highway village of Lansing Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area G—d by: Draft Environmental Imoact Statement: Carol Conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect July 12, 2002 sole: Figure 24. Village of Lansing Land Use Various; see maps Figure 24 THE QaTn EiTO TT� BFb'/'SU rSBV� Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants A--1' N w-�- E s 1 : 30,000 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 ROAD I ,o 0 I � BUSH'S', Zoning District Business and Technology ® Commercial High Traffic Commercial Low Traffic Human Health Services District 0 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Research District Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road rn BAN BOMAX DRIVE O- :1 OVy m -:idTRY WALKc i SJ DRIVE U- ROAAD -°`m L CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. n Td4vn of Lansi — Nll� `�_ (( Town )If Groton of Lansing 79 366 Town of Dry City of ! a 327 Tow { !th Town of Town of Carolin 1 o.wn of no % wn of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary QStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 $ Miles Village of Lansing = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area 0—t.d by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 sots: Figure 25. Village of Lansing Zoning. Various; see maps Figure 25 o DP _ - of R 34 BURDICK MLL OAKCRE Village of Lansing N Study Area Im Municipal Boundary Agricultural District = Agricultural District #1 Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Gap COMPARES E..y;.,,...... ,'-.3- Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants 9 Town of Lansing "9 W tUTCs O ,I LL RDc r,P PF ROAD y O Oc "FT RD �l wEaAx L DRNE I 90 o DARTIr of m. Village of Cayuga Heights g - OAE ETNA Town of Dryden 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 � a STE4ENSON ROAD i o F 0 ° P F O a EwS o 09 GEQ' yO Z RDAO g 0 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. q ' I �r Town if Groton 4B e of Lansing Town of Dry 0 13 Town of Carolin own of \" wn of Newfiel 34 1 LA MMunicipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Li Study Area Mlles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area MuniCIDal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 26. Agricultural Districts. Created by: Carol Conolly wtc July 12, 2002 Soak: Various; see maps Figure 26 J Transportation Analysis Zones 0 = 41 185 ' Municipal Boundary M] 9 = 42 191 Roads 0 11 43 0 194 13 State Highway 12 64 0 230 County Highway 13 72 236 Local Road 15 73 0 237 16 74 I—i 238 17 ;'. 75 239 18 76 240 1977 241 20178 242 t - 21 - 3 79 243 "- 22 80 244 0 23 91 245 0 24 92 246 25 93 247 26 94 248 0 27 95 249 28 96 0 250 2997 251 30 103 252 31 104 0 253 32 105 254 33 106 Lu 255 r J34 112256 �35113257 �36114 258 37 115259 �38116 260 39 126 0 266 40 181 1 - 1 267 268 269 TH E PA�IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Town of Lansing Fes. P -Soo( ios _ _ 79 Town of Dryden Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers. 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. TowyT'df Ith Town of Town�f Groton �B e of Lansing 13 13 66 To.wn of Dryd n Town of Carolin own of �f'7+} Twn of Newfiel 34 Lj Municipal Boundary Geated by: Carol Conolly Draft Environmental Imaact Statement: pd1e: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect, I July 12, zoo2 smb: Transportation Analysis Zones. Various; see maps Figure 27 0 2 4 $ Study Area Mlles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area . Figure 27 GREEN O Opp• _ _ BOWER -" R SS OAp _`Lc`.'.: �'•_, '_Ly,_ -` : 2 .. ROAD.•' - _ Town of Lansing 413 _ laaM +J-` _ f # 4 Q01Nr VBlLB� In - -S Municipal Boundary School Districts ® Dryden Central School District Ithaca City School District Lansing Central School District Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road Z ' GeV ,WATERWAGON •- JUTC -_ -- - Ufa a � j - __ _- �'RjR,I�° ' • -DAD. _ y _- - - - BUROICK HILL TDB —�' _ p _ �yOAKCREST N = : 4 — f.1 \ Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 N w E s } y 7 366 Town of Dryden 'siEVE,',ON',ROADi-�.,�YEry • =-A EWB. y m '= ROA. �- > i _ � `ROAD •,_�- '$_ •y � - _ `A SryyD `'NI11 0 s.." OENt, _ _ _ _ _ �•L _ . ' _x ' , P —40 i�-ocd, ZR. 500011 ROA � 79 =t•_ 34 4t— Town f f U --Ci(yOfI 8C - - p�r'n f' _ 79 13 / T R of Caro ith -5 T wn of Newfiel i , 0 2 4 8 State Highway Miles Study Area Boundary = Municipal Boundary School Districts - Dryden Central School District t ; l Ithaca City School District Lansing Central School District Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area THE I C—Wb, CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND. SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conolly Ra en Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office:Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect D'I"20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street July 12, 2002 PA I ES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 rs/ Surveyors EnginPlaneers Phone: (518) 235-8050 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Figure 28. School Districts. =oI°` Phone: (781) 556-1037 Various; see maps Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. l Figure 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 m U BOWE GREEN �� OLO R ROAD 46 ROAD 0 34 _ aoa IR aP A = o a ROAD s m O O p ASBUM _ n w 4 ROB :E RUN £ Q� a �,E WATERWAGON RR 'S Z mmp (jj LW Li Am 0 34 c i r " "Po rurc D op S D AL Roe 2 O �9 glyCHEARI` WROAD Fy _ L __.-.._....b ryORIZON 0 c p 0 BU RDICK HILL 1O. i yp DOER _ A RD Z O YR T RD OAKCREST DRIVE DART DF R090 Village of Lansing Q Study Area Village of Municipal Boundary Cayuga Heights Parks Derived from Land Use Mapping Public Parks and Cornell Plantations ® Recreation Corridors ® Stadiums and Ball Fields Parks Derived from Tax Parcel Property Class - Parks Recreation - Wild Forest - State Parks Without Forests Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road 11T Gazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants 1 : 90,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Town of Lansing a g ROAL EfNA to m STEVENSON ROAD n _ m c 0 0 a ELLIB o g 2GE", O i ROAD c a a ROADIm pl ? WOODLA FQ 9� �mER sODOM ROA 79 F Qogo o CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. N wE is Town of Dryden Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi 34 222 4B Tow*if roton qrl 4B . T f UI . 89 IlJ a of Lansing 13 96 �' 13 13 Village c ayuga Heiah 79 366 Town of Dryd City of i iac 327 Tow 1th Town of IS!. ?'` 79 613 13 Town of Carolin 1 own of -n jwn of Newfie" 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 �i Study Area Miles State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Curried by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Sale: Figure 29. Parks and Recreation Facilities. Various; see maps Figure 29 ' 60 4.0 DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM . PROPOSED ' SEWERS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING SERVICE AREA. This section of the DEIS describes the direct impacts on the physical environment of the proposed project, the construction of collector sewers and pump stations in the Town of Lansing Service Area and construction of a transmission main to serve the Town of Lansing Service Area. As previously discussed, the construction of two ' sewer diversions merely involves the replacement of existing pipe within existing roadways and disturbed rights -of -way, and therefore no environmental analyses of these components is required. 4.1 Topography 4.1.1 Impacts Potential impacts to topography primarily relate to the potential for erosion during construction activities, especially on steep slopes. Construction grading may alter surface drainage characteristics, resulting in the potential for sedimentation of water bodies. As illustrated in Figure 30, steep slopes are primarily found near Cayuga ' Lake, and the construction of sewer lines in locations near the lake has the greatest potential to result in erosion and sediment runoff, although this impact could occur anywhere if not properly mitigated. ' Once the project is completed and areas are restored to finished grade, there is little long-term potential for erosion and sedimentation. The majority of the facilities will be underground, and the proposed pump stations will occupy very small areas. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures Specific erosion control plans will be required prior to construction. The plans will be designed to retain soil and prevent it from reaching water bodies or adjoining properties. The project will require a general permit for stormwater runoff. The erosion control plans will be designed in accordance with the following documents, which set standards and guidelines for erosion control plans. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 61 ■ New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control (April 1997) ■ New York State General Permit for Stormwater Runoff Discharges, GP- 93-06 (General Permit) Appendices D, E, and F (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Work will progress in a systematic fashion with the following phases: land clearing, excavation, installation or construction, backfill and restoration. All ground surfaces that will be disturbed during construction will be stabilized and restored. Earthwork will be performed with the objective of completing pipe trench excavation and backfilling sequentially. After clearing of vegetation from the earthwork areas, topsoil will to be removed and stockpiled for reuse. Topsoil stockpiles will also be subject to erosion control measures. 4.2 Geology 4.2.1 Impacts Potential impacts to the subsurface geology involve the need for blasting for rock removal in areas of shallow bedrock. Figure 31 illustrates the depth to bedrock within the Town of Lansing Service Area where sewers are proposed. This figure illustrates that extensive areas of shallow bedrock are likely to be encountered when constructing the sewer lines, especially near Cayuga Lake. 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures Ripping rock will be the preferred alternative for excavation in areas of shallow bedrock except where determined by the engineer, that it is unfeasible. It is likely that shale bedrock will be rippable in some instances, but that limestone bedrock will not. When blasting is found necessary, all blasting operations will adhere to New York State ordinances governing the use of explosives. The State regulations are contained in 12 NYCRR 39 and Industrial Code Rule 53, and include such requirements as licensing of operators; magazine (explosive storage) certification; and rules for conducting operations in a safe manner. Proper program guidelines will be established between the State, the Project Engineer, and the blasting contractor prior to undertaking this activity. In addition to obtaining applicable blasting certifications and complying with all blast safety requirements, a blast monitoring program will be implemented. The elements of such a program include, but are not limited to: DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 62 • Precise engineering determination of the depth and location of on - site blasting; • Evaluation of the location of property lines and the structural nature of nearby buildings for determination of the maximum blast velocity for charges to be used; ' ■ Use of a seismograph to monitor each blast attempt and evaluate the blast velocity of the charges used; Saturate soils prior to blasting and use blast matting to minimize lifting of rock and debris and to control dust during ' blasting; ■ Notification of surrounding residents and landowners. ' All pertinent safety regulations and standards shall be applied as required for safety, security and other related details for any blasting deemed necessary. Applicable safety regulations are: ■ US Army Corps of Engineers Safety Manual EM 385-1-1; ' Code of Federal Regulations A.T.F. Title 27; ■ Institute of Makers of Explosives Safety Library Publications No. 22; ■ New York State Industrial Code Rule 53. ■ Storage of all explosive materials shall be located on the site at a location approved by the blasting engineer. Caps or other detonating devices will not be stored with Class A explosives. Design of the powder magazine shall be in accordance with the references above. The security for explosives and blasting materials stored on -site will be in accordance with safety ' requirements and the blasting engineer. ' Delivery and transportation of explosives from the powder magazines to the blast area will be by vehicles specifically designed for this use by the criteria outlined in the safety requirements. Only authorized persons will transport and handle the explosives as designated by the authority of those licensed for this purpose. At all times federal, state, and local ordinances will be followed concerning the transportation and storage of explosives. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 63 ' The designated storage site, explosive transporting vehicles, and areas where explosives are being used shall be clearly marked and will display the ' required .warning signs. A daily tally of all explosives delivered, used and stored will be maintained. Prior to blasting, necessary precautions ' for the protection of persons and adjoining property will be established, including: ' ■ Appropriate signs will be erected in the area of blasting activities. ' ■ All adjoining property owners will be mailed notification of the anticipated blasting schedule. ' ' Notification of blasting at the site will be published in newspapers prior to the blasting schedule. ' ' A storm alert monitoring device will be used by the blasting contractor to detect any electrical build-up in the atmosphere ' at the blast area while using electrical caps. ■ Special care will be taken with detonating cords and connectors to protect from the impact of falling rocks or other impeding objects. ' Vehicles equipped with radio transmitters and portable 2- way .radios will not be permitted within 250 feet of blasting operations. 4.3 Soils 4.3.1 Impacts Potential impacts to soils relate to the potential for erosion, the generation of dust during construction and the possibility of encountering a high groundwater table requiring dewatering. Figure ' 32 illustrates the elevation of the groundwater table in relation to areas where sewers are proposed to be constructed. This figure ' illustrates that significant areas of sewer construction are likely to occur in areas of high groundwater. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 i �! 64 1 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures ' Mitigation measures for soil erosion are discussed in Section 4.1.2 above. To mitigate the effects of dust during construction, a dust control plan will be prepared. The major elements of this plan will be: ' • All paved areas must be swept clean on a daily basis. • During periods of drought or little rainfall, areas devoid of topsoil Ij should be ' watered regularly to minimize the amount of dust entering the air. • In periods of extreme rainfall or muddiness, truck washing stations should be established to avoid tracking significant quantities of soil ' onto area roadways. To minimize the effects of high groundwater in areas where trench excavation .is required, typical dewatering measures should be utilized to prevent surface water and/ or ground water from entering excavations. Typical measures include, but are not limited to: 'A - Installation of dewatering systems utilizing wells, well points, or similar methods complete with associated pump equipment, standby power and pumps, valves and associated appurtenances. ■ Maintain the system to control groundwater and maintain relatively dry conditions to excavate and place fill on dry subgrades. ■ Dispose of water removed through the dewatering process in a manner that avoids endangering public health; property, wetlands, Unique Natural Areas and portions of work already completed. This will generally involve the use of detention ponds in which sediments may settle prior to discharge. 4.4 Flora and Fauna 4.4.1 Impacts The primary potential for impacts to flora and fauna results from the disturbance of Unique Natural Areas, which are the areas where important flora and fauna in the Study Area are found. Figure 33 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 65 i illustrates the location of Unique Natural Areas in relation to proposed sewer line construction. Sewer lines will traverse roadside edges ' adjacent to UNA's 53 and 54. Sewer lines will cross UNAs 55, 63, 64 89, 90, 102 and 103. UNA 53 is the Portland Point Quarry and UNA 54 is the Minnegar LJ Brook Woods. Since construction will occur along the roadside at the edge of these areas, no significant disruption or disturbance is ' expected, other than short-term disruptions to wildlife from construction associated noise, and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. UNA 55 is the Lower Salmon Creek UNA. The proposed project will require the construction of sewer lines along existing roadside edges LJ and private drives. Sewer main construction for the Town of Lansing Service Area will stop south of the Myers Road bridge over Salmon ' Creek. Future extension of the sewer main north along Myers Road will utilize the bridge for crossing the creek. Only short term intrusion in the creek is expected for erection of scaffolding and installation of a ' - main to the bridge structure. No impacts to the characteristics that resulted in the listing of this area as a UNA are therefore anticipated, except for the possible temporary disruption of bird life due to construction noise and activities. ' UNA 63 is Shurger Glen. The proposed trunk sewer and force main lines will skirt the western edge of the UNA along Portland Point Road. Appendix 9 contains aerial photographs illustrating the route the sewer main may take through this UNA. Final selection of the sewer main route heading east toward Teeter Road can avoid crossing any wooded portion of the lower glen. No impacts to the characteristics that resulted in the listing of this area as a UNA are therefore ' - anticipated. UNA 64 is a unit of the Lake Cliffs UNA. Within this areas sewer lines are proposed to be constructed along several roads. The primary potential for impact in this area is the potential for erosion and I sedimentation from construction on steep slopes. No impacts to the characteristics that resulted in the listing of this area as a UNA are therefore anticipated. UNA 89 is another unit of the Lake Cliffs. Approximately 1,200 feet of ' sewer line construction along a former railroad grade east of East Shore Drive is proposed in this UNA. The primary potential for impact DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 I� 66 t U in this area is the potential for erosion and sedimentation from construction on steep slopes. Vegetation in the right-of-way will be U11 disturbed. Appendix 9 contains aerial photographs illustrating the route sewer line construction will take across this UNA. UNA 90 is Esty's Glen. Sewer line construction is proposed to cross in L the vicinity of the Glen in the East Shore Drive right-of-way. Because construction will be limited to the road right -of —way and will not occur ' within the Glen, no adverse impact is anticipated. UNA 102 is the Renwick Slope. Approximately 2,000 feet of sewer line construction is proposed to cross this UNA along the route of an old railroad bed within which is located an existing Village of Cayuga ' Heights sewer main. This route is mowed and maintained as a sewer right-of-way, thus minimizing the potential for impact. ' UNA 103 is McKinney's Twin Glens and Lake C. Approximately 2,000 feet of sewer line construction along a former railroad grade is proposed, through this UNA. This UNA is reported as the location of several rare species, resulting in the potential for disturbance or destruction of these species. Appendix 9 contains aerial photographs illustrating the route the sewer line is proposed to follow through this ;a UNA. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures Impacts to UNA 55, the Lower Salmon Creek relate to the need for construction mitigation of short term impacts related to installation of the sewer main on the bridge so that it may cross this stream. Such mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.5.2. L! Impacts to UNA 63, Shurger Glen, are anticipated to be minimal, as the proposed sewer line route will avoid the wooded portion of the lower glen. Mitigation measures are therefore limited to those for soil and erosion control discussed in Section 4.1.2. Impacts to UNA's 64 and 89, the Lake Cliffs, relate primarily to the need for soil erosion control. Such mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.1.2. Additional mitigation measures are discussed below. - Q Impacts to UNA 90, Esty's Glen, are limited to the potential for disturbance of the edge of the UNA from construction in the road right - DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 67 of -way. Mitigation measures are limited to those for soil and erosion control discussed in Section 4.1.2. Impacts to UNA 103, McKinney's Twin Glens and Lake C, primarily relate to, the potential for disturbance of protected species. In these areas a biological survey of the proposed sewer line route should be constructed prior to construction to ensure that no such species will be disturbed. Additional mitigation measures are discussed below. ' Impacts to UNA 102 . the Renwick Sloe are anticipated . P � P to be minimal because the route will follow an existing sewer line right-of-way that is i mowed and maintained for that purpose. Mitigation measures are limited to those for soil and erosion control discussed in Section 4.1.2. With respect to UNNs 53 and 54, no significant impacts are anticipated and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. With respect to general construction, the following mitigation measures have been identified. • The construction route will be marked in the field and temporary barriers erected to protect adjoining trees and vegetation. • All trees over 12" diameter at breast height will be marked; if possible, the 'route will be adjusted in the field to avoid the destruction of such trees. • Construction equipment and materials may not be staged within the boundaries of UNAs except where no alternative location exists. An additional mitigation measure that has been identified for consideration in Unique Natural Areas 89 and 103 is the use of trenchless construction techniques. Trenchless construction involves the use of horizontal boring or similar methods to install sewers without disturbing the ground surface. The advantage to this method is that it results in less impact to flora and fauna. It is, however, significantly more expensive than conventional construction techniques. The decision to use this method will be made at the conclusion of the SEQRA process after consideration of all relevant facts and information. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 68 4.5 Water Resources 4.5.1 Impacts The project will have a significant positive impact in that it will result in the decommissioning of a number of in -ground and small wastewater treatment facilities. These facilities do not provide the �J same level of treatment as do the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca municipal facilities, particularly with respect to phosphorus removal. A major benefit of the project will therefore be reduced impacts to ground and surface waters, including especially Cayuga Lake. Sewage treatment facilities without phosphorus treatment which currently discharge to surface waters (and therefore Cayuga Lake) that will be eliminated by this project include those at the Division for Youth facilities, Cargill, Inc. and Woodsedge Apartments. Adverse impacts to Water Resources primarily relate to the potential for disruption and disturbance from construction activities associated with stream crossings. The locations where stream crossings are anticipated are illustrated in Figure 34. This Figure illustrates that no crossings of protected streams (i.e. those streams classified by the NYSDEC as C(t) or higher) are proposed. Approximately 43 individual stream crossings are associated with this project. As illustrated by Figure 35, proposed sewer lines will cross floodplains in several locations. However, since the lines will be underground, no impacts to floodplains are anticipated. The proposed sewer transmission main will come in close proximity to a private water supply at 1203 East Shore Drive. To the extent that a leak or break in a line occurs at some point in the future, this supply could be adversely impacted. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures Streams are regulated as "Waters of the United States" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that the ACOE would authorize this project under Nationwide Permit 12 for utility crossings of wetlands and waters. Under this Nationwide Permit, notification DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 69 (i.e., a Pre -Construction Notification or PCN) would need to be made if any of the following occur: • There was mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland. A Section 10 permit is required (i.e., the project crosses a navigable water). • The utility crossing(s) [cumulatively] impact more than 500 linear feet of waters. • There are permanent above -grade fills for roads that are more than 500 linear feet in length in waters of the United States. • Any permanent above -grade fills for roads are constructed with impervious surfaces. A NYSDEC's Protection of Waters permits under 6 NYCRR Section 608 is required. A Stream Disturbance permit is not required because the project does not impact any streams with classifications of C(t) or higher. However, the project will need a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, which is also authorized under 6 NYCRR Section 608, specifically Section 608.9. Any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that would result in a discharge into a navigable water must obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate. Therefore, Section 401 Water Quality Certificates are required, in association with US Army Corps of Engineers permits, including Nationwide Permits. The NYSDEC has issued blanket, or automatic Section 401 Water Quality Certificates for Nationwide Permit 12 when: • The project does not involve an Article VII permit under the Public Service Law. • Materials are not sidecast into waters of the United States for more than 30 days. • . Materials are not sidecast into any waterbody or stream with measurable flow. • When the project 'involves less than 1/10th an acre of permanent discharges and less _than 200 linear feet of stream disturbance [cumulative] . Therefore, the need to obtain a blanket versus an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certificate will be dependent upon the length 'of stream disturbance associated with the utility crossings. All additional mitigation measures imposed by the NYSDEC and the US Army Corps of Engineers to ensure protection of important surface waters during the construction stage will be implemented. These will DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 70 F likely include vegetative measures such as seeding, mulching, sod stabilization, and protection of existing vegetation. Structural measures may include earth dikes, straw bale dikes, silt fences, brush barriers, drainage swales, check dams, and rock protection, among others. In addition, the construction of the sewer line will follow guidelines established in the New York Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidebook: Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development to protect stream and other surface water body quality. These practices will include the initiation of environmental safeguards i to ensure sediment and erosion control. Preparation of detailed erosion and sediment control measures will be integral to the permit application process. Whenever possible, stream crossings will be constructed during the dry season in order to avoid the potential for significant flows. Trenched stream crossings will be constructed in the "dry" where the water flow is either flumed or pumped across the work area. This would eliminate the ( great majority of downstream siltation during the pipeline installation. Hay bales and silt fences would be used as specified in the erosion control plan to prevent siltation from upslope areas. Whenever possible, excavation will be done from the banks, keeping equipment out of the -° streambed. In larger streams, the installation may be a two-step procedure. The water flow may be diverted away from the working side by the use of a cofferdam, then reversed to install the remainder of the pipeline across the stream. °Trenching may also be done with a rock saw. This method would also be done as a dry crossing. In addition, the t following specific mitigation measures are proposed. ' • All staging areas for stream crossings will be kept at least 100 feet away from the stream. • No refueling, equipment repair or lubricating will be allowed within 100 feet of a stream unless said stream is located j immediately adjacent to a road crossing, with limited access, 1 and therefore requires such activity. • Proper spill containment will be used to isolate these activities and minimize the potential for spills in such instances. IDEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 71 • Whenever possible, stream crossings will be avoided at a stream bend, in areas of undercut banks, or in areas where the bank is unstable. • In areas where long slopes lead to streams, water bars will be installed. Otherwise, silt fences and/or hay bales will be installed. • The necessary grading and brush clearing of stream banks will take place immediately prior to trenching in order to minimize i the exposure of bare soil. ■ Stream bank and flood plain stabilization measures will be immediately implemented upon completion of construction. ■ In -stream disturbances will be minimized. ■ All trenching will be performed in such a way so as to prevent the introduction of sediments into streams. ■ No flow obstructions will be left in the streambed or channel. L' aAY _ ■ The streambed and banks- will be restored as close to the original contours as possible. If a stream crossing is located within a wetland, the crossing will be designed to minimize the length of any right-of-way Li constructed parallel to a stream course within the wetland. Silt fencing and/or haybales will be used to insure that siltation is minimized and retained within the work area. The bank and trench spoil piles will be isolated from the wetland by silt fences. Separation of topsoil and subsoil will be necessary during the bank excavation within the wetlands. Care will be taken to reestablish the stream channel in the original location and condition. ■ Any stream banks will be restored to the original contour and _ stabilized. ■ The conditions at some stream crossings may make trenching difficult and unacceptable from a construction standpoint. In these areas, a directional bore crossing method may be used. ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 72 [� The potential impact from directional boring is the potential of leakage of the cutting and lubricating fluid. The starting ' and ending points for the directional bore will be in uplands. The directional bore work areas will be protected with silt fences in order to contain any surface outflows of the liquid. Fluid flow controls will - be available to quickly seal any leakage. Any leakage will be removed from the boring location, and the area restored prior to removal of silt fences. ' With respect to the potential impact to the private water supply well at 1203 East Shore Drive, it is proposed that the transmission line be double sleeved within 100 feet of the well. This will provide protection in the unlikely event of a break or leak in the line. 4.6 Wetlands 1 4.6.1 Impacts As illustrated by Figure 36, the proposed project will not impact any NYSDEC regulated wetlands or their adjacent areas. Figure 37 illustrates that the project does not cross any wetland areas identified by the National Wetland Inventory Map. The project engineer has reviewed the proposed sewer line routes in the field and confirmed that no Federally regulated wetlands will be impacted by the project. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures C� No mitigation measures are proposed as no adverse impacts have been identified. 4.7 Unique Natural Areas 4.7.1 Impacts Impacts to Unique Natural Areas are discussed in Section 4.4.1. 1 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 73 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for impacts to Unique Natural Areas are discussed in Section 4.4.2. 4.8 Climate and Air Resources 4.8.1 Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to have any direct impacts to air resources, other than the potential for generating dust during construction. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for construction generated dust are discussed in Section 4.3.2. 4.9 Visual Resources 4.9.1 Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to have any significant direct impacts to visual resources. The proposed sewer lines will be underground. The pump stations are small structures with no significant visual impact. Landscaping will be provided around the pump station buildings. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures F-'111 No mitigation measures are proposed since no adverse impacts have been identified. U 4.10 Odors 4.10.1 Impacts Pump stations have the potential to cause odors if they are not properly operated. The primary cause of odors is related to upstream waste remaining stagnant for long periods of time. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 74 1 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures Pump station odors are best controlled through proper cycle timing of the pumps. This is an operational issue. The DEC will require, through its permit for the project, that pumps be cycled at regular intervals to prevent odors. In addition to pump cycling, odors can be prevented by providing proper venting. This typically relates to proper air exchange in the wet well space. Finally, three mitigation methods could be used if problems were found once the stations became operational. An aeration system could be introduced to agitate and add air to the sewage to prevent septic conditions. Carbon cartridges can be added to the vent pipes in order to filter the air as it leaves the wet well. Finally, chemicals can be added to the wet well to reduce odors. 4.11 Noise 4.11.1 Impacts Pump station motors and back-up generators have the potential to f cause noise. Motor noise is relatively insignificant; generator noise would occur during periods when the electric supply is disrupted and during infrequent testing periods. Noise will be, generated during construction by construction equipment. This is a short-term, unavoidable adverse impact. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures Generators should be located in enclosed building spaces to, minimize the potential for noise impacts. 4.12 Cultural Resources 4.12.1 Impacts The Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey identified the possibility of encountering cultural resources in areas of construction that have previously been undisturbed. Such areas are generally found in those portions of the sewer line route outside of road rights -of -way, although DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 4� 75 in some instances road rights -of -way may also be considered to be previously undisturbed. The abandoned railroad right-of-way may or may not be considered to have been previously disturbed, depending in part on the depth to which the sewer line will be buried. 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures The results of the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey will be supplied, via this DEIS, to the New York State Historic Preservation Office. Based on the input of this office, previously undisturbed areas will be agreed upon. Such areas are likely to include those portions of the proposed sewer lines outside of road rights -of -way, as well as the construction footprints for the pump stations. These undisturbed areas j tii will be subject to Stage 1B testing. Such testing will consist of shovel �t excavations and screening of excavated material at a set interval, usually every 50 feet. If significant cultural material is found during this investigation, a plan for additional testing, and if necessary, mitigation, will be prepared. 4.13-Land Use and Zoning —. 4.13.1 Impacts �i z - The project will have no direct impacts to land use and zoning. Indirect impacts are discussed in Section 6.4.6. 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures C1 ! No mitigation measures are proposed as no adverse impacts have been identified. 4.14 Transportation i 4.14.1 Impacts The project will have no direct impacts to transportation patterns once it is operational. Indirect impacts are discussed in Section 6.4.4. Project related construction has the potential to disrupt traffic. Permits will be required from New York State, Tompkins County, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, the Town of Lansing, the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca for construction in their respective rights -of -way. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 76 1 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures Prior to construction a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan will be developed. Major elements of the plan are likely to include: • No material is to be placed on the shoulder except that which .' is to be used that day. • Construction equipment will be removed from the edge of the pavement during non -working hours. l - ■ Private vehicles owned by the contractors or their workers, i will not be parked on the pavement or shoulders, or any L.- other areas deemed to be hazardous locations. ■ Advance Warning Signs that may be either diamond or rectangular shaped according to Part 238 of the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NYS MUTCD) will be used. �`' ■ The contractor will coordinate work so there is no conflict LJ with construction signing in overlapping work areas, and so that lane continuity is maintained between work areas. The contractor will coordinate work with any contractors, public maintenance, or utilities company operations in the area to - ensure proper maintenance of traffic. _! ■ All cones, drums and markers are to be placed so as to provide a minimum 2' clearance to the traveled way, unless otherwise shown on the plans. The contractor will make certain that placement of the cones, drums and markers or barricades will not interfere with sight distance. Typical _ ; spacing will be approximately one foot per mile of approach _ speed. L : ■ The correct sequence and spacing of signs, whether permanent, temporary or construction, will be maintained at all times, in accordance with the NYS MUTCD. Prior to the start of any construction phase, all proposed Maintenance and Protection of "Traffic related work for that IDEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 77 phase, as determined by the Project Engineer, will be complete. ■ The contractor will provide flaggers where sight distances are impaired by construction operations, or as ordered by the Project Engineer. ' The contractor will schedule construction operations to minimize the interruption of pedestrian traffic. ' The contractor will provide property owners with proper access to, and minimum widths for their driveways according to the policy and standards for entrances to State Highways; will maintain them through all phase work areas; and will delineate them by means of signs, cones, and/or drums. On Tompkins County and Town roads, the contractor will maintain access to private driveways unless work is proceeding in the end of a driveway at which time the contractor is to minimize the amount of time within which the driveway is blocked. ' The contractor will minimize movements in and out of designated travel lanes with construction vehicles and - = equipment. Only necessary or authorized vehicles, as determined by the Project Engineer, will be allowed to enter any phase work area. ■ Protection and restoration of property will be in accordance with the NYSDOT Standard Specifications and will be to a condition equal to or better than prior to construction, with the Project Engineer being the judge of the quality of all the work. To assist in this, the contractor will be required to take pre -construction photographs to document existing conditions. ' The contractor will contact all the appropriate parties with jurisdiction over the utilities entering on, or near the project area prior to initiation of construction activities and will provide those agencies with 48 hours notification in accordance with Industrial Code Rule 53. ' All disturbed non -pavement areas will be raked, top soiled, seeded, and mulched. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 78 4.15 Demographics 4.15.1 Impacts The project will have no direct impact on demographic characteristics. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no impacts have been identified. 4.16 Fiscal Conditions 4.16.1 Impacts The project will be paid for by a combination of State Bond Act funds and local match. It is anticipated that users of the system will be assessed at a rate sufficient to repay the bonding and debt costs for the project. The rate will be dependent on the boundaries of the sewer benefit district discussed in Section 2.6. The boundaries of this district have not been established yet. 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no impacts have been identified. 4.17 School Districts 4.17.1 Impacts The project will have the beneficial impact of eliminating on -site wastewater discharges and operational responsibilities at Lansing Central School District schools within the Town of Lansing Service Area. The project will have no direct adverse impacts on school districts. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no impacts have been rn identified. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 79 4.18 Community Services ' 4.18.1 Impacts The project will have no direct adverse impacts on community services. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. 4.18.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no impacts have been identified. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 - , VAJ -- Town,of.Lans ri - r� ,•�_ y _ v I- i G N d ems: yy - - P 1:55,000 t Miles Municipal Boundary Sewer Service Area .a O Proposed Pumpstations Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area 100-Foot Contours 20-Foot Contours Roads =[jj= State Highway -- �- County Highway Local Road THE Cha en COMPA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants .. ��'Y.'+i�-tOWNiV.fL•111D f � f C • �f� r�JJ O bt C t EASY MF 0 n L' EtD�0YJ5 .I n P- pTi O 9 O V t 5 u m^ bw 9 ATEAWpOOH PT � wsaEwnc wrvFs ofl a 34 !i CD - fl C S Im � ��11MOICXf--� NtLL 1 r ROPDI � � OJN p(tP�pR O v �� • ` DflN ` i� j 0 n � rn VTkn of Lansi T f 1 /W tarn \Q U 1 ` vniage c 'o Cayuga H htf 7s u Clty of I am dLLPOE � �1 327 To AIL `j Town of Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. 1 222 3 � Town f Groton 413 l� Villa a of Lansing 13 13 13 366 Town of Dryd q Ith 79 Town of Carotin - 1 own of`Qa:,n,o- In f Newfiel 34 Lj Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 EmStudy Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 30. Topography and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 State: Various; see maps Figure 30 1 L ROAD`p . FV ;r = Town'of Lansing, - ,,:" 4_ _:.: e. y4WA, - " - - - • _��'v, _ _^t'C. �' is 1:55, 000 ROAD Miles 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 4•: �:. TEE Rogo cz cfrrac' •:- E KEF Municipal Boundary -' Sewer Service Area- Q 34 Proposed Pumpstations Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area Roads �s State Highway County Highway Bu LocalRoad Minimum Depth to Bedrock (inches) 12 14 2125 ;� 22 24 0 26 L 27 L—I 30 38 _ t' - _ _42 THE Cbap COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights To%4*- df lth Town of i 222 4 Town Jf Groton of Lansing 13 13 Town of Dryd Town of Carolin own of 1wn f Newfiel 34 Lj C3 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 O Study Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area h CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Figure FI 31. Minimum Depth to Bedrock and Proposed Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 g P P Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Ueated by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 scale: Various; see maps Figure 31 I C� V - KROAD 413 j Towncof=Lansn - _ �o-E;.r— ` ,SOP m N :_ TUGlI•L�171�= ROAD 1:55,000 �J. Miles wA 0 3.5 7 14 Roads �s State Highway _ - _ _ Dlc County Highway N - Local Road - O Proposed Pumpstations Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area Municipal Boundary Sewer Service Area _ Minimum Depth to Water Table (inches) s 4 6 10 0 20 =, _ 30 36 THE Cbap COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants 34 z OAKCREST R. Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 - This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansiri 34 34B 4B f Uly _ 89 ' Villa e 96 vnfage 13 Cayuga H h 79 36 City of 1 a �( r 327 T o w I t Town of Town cif Groton 1 of Lansing 13 13 6 Town of Dryd Town. of Carolin 1 own of`b�\ 1Twn of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 O Study Area Boundary Mlles Area shown on large-scale map = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 32. Minimum Depth to Water Table and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 32 %2 "-' - d . o _ - .'' _-' _ __,GREEN ? p BOWER VE r ROAD — _ =a ROAD - 1 - __ UNA-24 346 eRio� ,= - Y ' 34 - o Towri of Lansin eg ; o w /. J A 5 , O s = - U ` t : =-UNANSffiLN ! R° ERUVIL I e T n of Lansi 1 . 55,000 = . r ;z° D o ', 0 222 o 'f' Q. Miles _ - 'a - " 0-1 = Co34 46 l 0 0.5 1 2 _ ,. _ ;,t IJNA=53= m m RN Z: Town If Groton _ - "� 9 ° z ROAD I y� -i r°n O 4B w�. �p = ASBUR X ,� o T f ,u.l y �. Municipal Boundary _ F UNAw6 =I t w �O m _.. ( gg �Ita a ofLansing 13 Sewer Service Area_ _ TEE O 1 j-• `�' R qo 34 O Proposed Pumpstations n �RrUGRfIriKE ,; uN P5C 9 Q��a vniage 13 13 =`R E m i km.. Cayuga H h Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area _ • _.-I.,- ° :, __�tt�ia=ss I WATERWAGON 0 Si� 366 ]g Town of Dry d ' Unique Natural Areas °` = KE R I I �0� cityofl a Site Code, Site Name - _ - _ -''': LJ A m :3 % To D - `' 327 'd 1 th a 0 UNA-101, Newman Tract j Z o l UNA-102, Renwick Slope _ - - D y �'o wrc= o `UNA-67_'�. Town of rye ]g T✓u.. 34 a v 0 UNA-103, McKinneys Twin Glens and Lake C = _ •, ;' A o S ;0 dILLR m UNA-66 6B UNA-24, Lake Cliffs, North of Myers Point = _ _ = a o 7� �1 =`-_ �' 13 Town of Carotin t UNA-28, Ludlowville Woods ic'. Ty �,� z _ HERRYA Rr)AD �y _ __ Vown of �o UNA-52, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code WG14) hL LBORDICK HILL R °R1ZON D �011n SNYDNA-88 j UNA-53, Portland Point Quarry , t <.°° ' 0 uNA-so ROAD T w n o f N e w ft o f 34 t 0 UNA-54, Minnegar Brook Woods> OMunicipal Boundary Y UNA-55, Lower Salmon Creek 9 m, 0 2 4 8 MStudy Area Boundary Miles _ Area shown on large-scale map .�7 •� �.'r:� � �• -� F. OAKCREST R Zl Village of Lansing = state Highway UNA-63, Shurger Glen 0 UNA-64, Lake Cliffs, South of Portland NA-8 s� UNA-65 Head Corners Wetland _ - - ' L^ = =` =- i Apo Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area f - UNA-66, Cornell Ponds #1 and DEC Mapped (Code WG21) A- UNA-67, Dryden -Lansing Swamp 0 UNA-88, Airport Ponds, Wetland = Disclaimer: UNA-89, Lake Cliffs, McKinney's Point t0 Bolton Point Unique Natural Area boundaries were delineated by field biologists based on a review ' UNA-90, Esty's Glen = i _ °__` ': — Village of Cayuga Heights of air photographs, digital GIs base map data (roads, building footprints, 20-foot contours and streams) and field visits. Unique Natural Area boundaries are approximate and Roads should be used for general planning purposes only. As a practical matter, Tompkins 13 State Highway County does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information portrayed. The end -user of this map agrees to accept the data "as -is" with full knowledge that County Highway errors and omissions may exist, and to hold harmless the County for any damages that Local Road may result from inappropriate use of this map. cared by: THE Cbap CaCHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project oa�e: pital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street I July 12, 2002 COMPARES Troy,New York 12182 Figure 33. Unique Natural Areas and Proposed Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 g Q p Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556 1037 Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 33 9 1 4NV S GREE SOWER 4B p _ - - - Towri'_of Larisin _ _ >- DLHN _ -S' � l?_. _ M• ^ � _�'_' ' - _ ' �t,„ -- ; � ADO~ 4�yP• j `�P M' - __ : :. - . -_--. - • L -- - - - _ - _ - v. _ � ..�� � _ _ ' wry +,.(�*• � Z. wE .. ' - - - WATE a' < ROb snow 1.55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 _ 34 --r.~•-'-_i,._- �,:-4-•ice ', -_ ,?__- _ RIOG it :•�': _ - y � �-per" ' rr'.,-�;t`�,: _ GA Municipal Boundary ` .. = u ` yD mb� f Sewer Service Area a I RDAD < GAR Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area _ N O Proposed Pumpstations Roads 13 State Highway County Highway" - Local Road - = Intersections between service area sewers and streams = •Sewer intersection with an unprotected stream = _ Protected Streams Unprotected StreamsF,_' THE Chazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (781) 556-1037 I it — T n. of Lansi . 3 � 222 34 K� p r 413 Town , f Groton g 4B J R ° T f Uly W �"��°°""� NEAGG 89 Vila a of Lansing 13 oplH�R • 96 Qp 13 i 13 Village c ayuga Hemh D�.e9�� 7g 366 Town of Dryd \ J HISPERNGMMDR City of I is i ACRE ZGS GN VILLAGE 327 To i I th FOR a ° Town of --e4 79 ODIDII NLL� • \. °a / 613 DHERRV RDA 13 Town of C a r o l i n 5 zE Hoa¢oN oiiRE c � own of _q y� ATE DR ���� 11 A �W wn of Newfiel 34 D� C3 Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Municipal Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map Village of Lansing state Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Village of Cayuga Heights North Country Office: 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 812-0513 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 34. Stream Crossings Within the Proposed Town of Lansing Sewer Service Area. Created by: Carol Conolly m:e: July 12, 2002 S k: Various; see maps Figure 34 9 - -- �iv..� - _ _ `•5�^.= • - - may_ . _ -'[—� . C- � - -�qRO - - _ - 413 € R _ Town'of Laiisin -; _ _--_ wE \s 1 : 55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Municipal Boundary Sewer Service Area O Proposed Pumpstations Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area FEMA Floodplain Category Area inundated by 100-year flooding; no base flood elevations determined Area inundated by 100-year flooding; base flood elevations determined 0 Area that is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains Roads 1s State Highway County Highway Local Road Q3434 i. . F T II n of La.nst wn TA Dflf _ auRRLS ROAD i n 7 w MEAoows 'l I y Ry MEAOb1 9 , SPo S WAI WATFRWAGOR � O <MU SKY AtliE t OR "yf i + Itl RAIEC aOAO ••f�'_{-'T _ �T�^" - n��-.�'-'�:�t: ROAD a OAKCRFST yt" � �r9 " ._�._`.. `•ni:�:'.7 ice.: ^4 34p �,.Y DUfC11 MILL°• o z h 1 �EaaY ,a,D s F =Eu RORaoH D•�rvE EsrA Da � � r pose, oa�v J/ Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights THE CHAZEN ENGINEERING &LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Gap Capital District Office: Dutchess CountyOrange County Office: Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street COMPA ES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T/�� f U I w6age Cayuga Hi City of To Town of 1 � 3 222 *,f Towroton k e of Lansing 13 13 366 Town of Dryd II� 79 Town of Carotin - 1 own of`D�\� lTw�n of Newfie.l 34 Lj C3Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 g 1 Study Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Geatea Dy: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project D le Figure 35. FEMA Floodplains and Proposed I July 12, 2002 Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. S"': various; see maps Figure 35 fr LJ Q3 — �y ;r. - - 'I �T� �f` • - owri`o Laiisi tit - _ - - - - • fl.�+- f f - /''�' /. 0 4 T n of Lan r - -- - _ - - - -- ' "•^• ._ _..- - _.-� -A oil - - - 222 34 4B Town f Groton f0 S - va 'q, a h. {f w MEnmws MEAoays o Asnlmy 1 _�"` _ - -_ ,yn, •-x:" _ e m - MATM o T f (f l y m Rob 89 i//a a of Lansing 13 _ -- - t V. m 96 1 . 55,000 = ; _cAr"— u�A-' : -ate= sP�= �•`' vivage 13 13 WATE0.WI . ' Miles Cayuga H h 0 0.5 1 2 ,...:'3: ^_ _ _' II ` y ~'; .' <° ` _ ONES Ufl o WG-20 79 366 Town of Dry d :S _ - _ •__�� ' "-r }; ;Si -'_:`. K Oli NLLPOE City of l a FO 327 Tow I t h "VG-21 Town of 1 79 �:Y.' :••'.i: - r.. Wyk .: *:fie CMFAHY 613 �"-> �zpy5 ,_.; o Town of Carotin ��---'--NULL---'---A� _ 13 _ e n wfla°�_ su nER TA-1 .3 � � \ own of � D awn J-J 'wn of Newfiel 34 Li Municipal Boundary s""E` Village of Lansing o 2 4 a ® y ry ' Stud Area Bounda� r =: -� �• - - -l' JnR� w MCNOflY1KK10W I V 4 Po Area shown an large-scale map Miles - s J • �4 2. •'•^t..� ^k. G IW�N OOP _ 00o un =State Highway Municipal Boundary Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Sewer Service Area - e Proposed Pumpstations Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area Roads� NYSDEC Wetlands --' Village of Cayuga Heights 13 State Highway ' County Highway Local Road �k THE C-11dbl: CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: I Carol Conolly t Gap Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Dale: I_' Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street July 12, 2002 COMPANIES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Figure 36. NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands and Proposed style• ' Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Various; see maps Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 36 L L I D - - _� �' •' °tea 1a,.,� ,: , .� ,i".� _ 34 J,Wf ±Town'=of_L_arisirig,, N - 'r' _ _ _ - WAIFRWAGOH MO Q G s _ - F9a RDPD / 4 J 3 1 . 55,000 = OH D ¢ _7 1 la •� - FitDOR9 EAST MEAOOIVS D ` � �� Miles 34 a 0 0.5 1 2 r ROAD I CHERRY OR CK _._._., WLL - - S NOR¢OP D DR p riOAp of Lansing _ .WOOD Uh Municipal Boundary T 'i Sewer Service Area O Proposed Pumpstations = _ Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Roads 4 ,s State Highway = —�- County Highway Local Road THE Chap COMPAI ES ' Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Cayuga Heights ZOeP VILLPGE a DORN NILL� � I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. • I h T n of La I 4B f UFy 89 96 l vmage 'fir Cayuga H h 79 City of I ac 327 T o Town OI %tC� r 222 13 4 Town f Groton LPnfL1an-szkg 1 1 13 �-1 13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ ��,a 13 Town of Carolin' . 4 own of -nojr AD wn of Newfiel34 EmMunicipal Boundary OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect Figure 37. Federally Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 37 Miles 34 a 0 0.5 1 2 r ROAD I CHERRY OR CK _._._., WLL - - S NOR¢OP D DR p riOAp of Lansing _ .WOOD Uh Municipal Boundary T 'i Sewer Service Area O Proposed Pumpstations = _ Proposed Sewer Lines for Service Area USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Roads 4 ,s State Highway = —�- County Highway Local Road THE Chap COMPAI ES ' Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Cayuga Heights ZOeP VILLPGE a DORN NILL� � I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. • I h T n of La I 4B f UFy 89 96 l vmage 'fir Cayuga H h 79 City of I ac 327 T o Town OI %tC� r 222 13 4 Town f Groton LPnfL1an-szkg 1 1 13 �-1 13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ ��,a 13 Town of Carolin' . 4 own of -nojr AD wn of Newfiel34 EmMunicipal Boundary OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect Figure 37. Federally Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 37 Village of Cayuga Heights ZOeP VILLPGE a DORN NILL� � I CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. • I h T n of La I 4B f UFy 89 96 l vmage 'fir Cayuga H h 79 City of I ac 327 T o Town OI %tC� r 222 13 4 Town f Groton LPnfL1an-szkg 1 1 13 �-1 13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ ��,a 13 Town of Carolin' . 4 own of -nojr AD wn of Newfiel34 EmMunicipal Boundary OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect Figure 37. Federally Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 37 • I h T n of La I 4B f UFy 89 96 l vmage 'fir Cayuga H h 79 City of I ac 327 T o Town OI %tC� r 222 13 4 Town f Groton LPnfL1an-szkg 1 1 13 �-1 13 13 366 Town of Dryd \ ��,a 13 Town of Carolin' . 4 own of -nojr AD wn of Newfiel34 EmMunicipal Boundary OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect Figure 37. Federally Regulated Wetlands and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 37 n r d. Town-4f Lansin =`. '-_;' +'�. aB ? } ax _ _ m w S E - - - _ �I� 1:55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 - L' 34 Municipal Boundary Sewer Planning Area O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area = Potential Sewer Lines in Planning Area _ - Q Topography 100-Foot Contours 20-Foot Contours = - Roads +3 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Chazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. f 34 1 � J T n of Lansi o 222 34 4 413 Town f Groton 4B S- 89 ansing 13 96 wnage 13 13 o Cayuga H h c~�=; 79 366 Town of Dry d City of I a 327 To I th 9 Q Town of 79 O sB Town of Caro/in r Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781).556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. own o f `iba`q lT,n'of Newfiet 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 O Study Area Boundary Mlles ® Area shown on large-scale map = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, IVY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 38. Topography and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers. Ce led by: Carol Conolly Date: Jury 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 38 L 80 5.0 DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM POTENTIAL SEWERS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING PLANNING AREA This section of the DEIS describes the direct impacts on the physical environment that could result if the potential sewers shown in the Town of Lansing Planning Area were constructed. It is emphasized that such sewer construction is not currently proposed, and that the actual location of such future construction, if proposed, could vary over that shown in Figure 8. The assessment in this section is provided to allow the earliest possible assessment of potential future sewer construction and to determine what the boundaries should be for the VCHWTP- IAWWTP service area. No impacts are discussed for the Town of Dryden because there are no plans of any kind for new sewer construction in the Town at this time. 5.1 Topography 5.1.1 Impacts Impacts to topography from potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.1.1. Figure 38 illustrates the relationship of topography to potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. As with sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Service Area, the primary impact relates to the potential for erosion and sedimentation from construction on steep slopes in the vicinity of Cayuga Lake. 5.1.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are identical to those discussed in Section 4.1.2. 5.2 Geology 5.2.1 Impacts Impacts to geology from potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.2.1. Figure 39 illustrates the relationship of geology to potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. As with sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Service Area, the primary impact relates to the need for blasting in areas of shallow bedrock depth. 5.2.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are identical to those discussed in Section 4.2.2. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 81 5.3 Soils Fi LI 5.3.1 Impacts Impacts to soils from potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.3.1. Figure 40 illustrates the relationship of the groundwater table to areas where sewers may potentially be constructed. This figure illustrates that substantial areas of high groundwater may be encountered within the Town of Lansing Planning Area. As with sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Service Area, the primary impact relates to the potential for soil erosion. 5.3.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are identical to those discussed in Section 4.3.1. 5.4 Flora and Fauna 5.4.1 Impacts As discussed in Section 4.4.1, the primary potential for impact to flora and fauna from potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area relates to the potential for disturbance to Unique Natural Areas, which are the areas where important flora and fauna in the DEIS Study Area are found. Figure 41 illustrates the location of Unique Natural Areas in relation to potential sewer line construction. Potential sewer lines would traverse roadside edges along UNAs 24, 28, 52, 54 and 55. Potential sewer lines would cross UNAs 64 and 65. UNA's 24, 28, 52, 54 and 55. are, respectively, the Lake Cliffs, the Ludlowville Woods, DEC Wetland WG-14, the Minnegar Brook Woods and the Lower Salmon Creek. Since construction would occur along the roadside edge of these areas, no significant disruption or disturbance would be expected, other than short-term disruptions to wildlife from .construction associated noise, and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. UNA 64 is a unit of the Lake Cliffs UNA. The primary potential impact in this area is the potential for erosion and sedimentation from construction on steep slopes. . DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 82 ! UNA 65 is the Head Corners wetland, a federally regulated wetland. A potential sewer line is shown to be constructed directly through this UNA, resulting in the potential for short and long-term habitat disruption and destruction. 5.4.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation for potential sewer line construction in the Town of Lansing ' Planning Area would be identical to that discussed in Section 4.4.2. Additionally, with respect to potential construction through the Head t Corners wetland, mitigation measures as discussed in Section 5.6.2 should also be employed, or, an alternative route that does not cross this wetland should be employed. 5.5 Water Resources 5.5.1 Impacts Impacts to water resources from potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are similar to those for the Town of Lansing Service Area discussed in Section 4.5.1. The locations where stream crossings are anticipated from potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are illustrated in Figure 42. This figure illustrates that one crossing of a Class C(t) protected stream is possible, as well as approximately 49 crossings of unprotected streams. As illustrated by Figure 43, a very small area of potential sewer lines will cross floodplains in the vicinity of Myers Point. However, since the lines will be underground, no impacts to floodplains are anticipated. Potential sewer lines in the Town of Lansing Planning Area may come in close proximity to private water supplies. To the extent that a leak or break in a line occurred at some point in the future, such supplies, could be ! adversely impacted. 5.5.2 Mitigation Measures ' measures are identical t t t Section 4 2 with Mitigation meas o hose discussed a Sec .5. , w t ' the additional note that a Protection of Waters Permit under 6 NYCRR Section 608 will be required from the NYSDEC for the crossing of the protected stream shown on Figure 42. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 83 i 5.6 Wetlands i 5.6.1 Impacts s As illustrated by Figure 44, potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area will not impact any DEC regulated wetlands. A portion of the ' potential sewer line along Benson Road may be located within the 100-foot adjacent area of DEC wetland WG-14. Construction of this sewer line would ' therefore be a regulated activity and require a permit. Figure 45 illustrates that one known Federally regulated wetland would be impacted by potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. This Cl wetland is known as UNA 65, the Head Corners wetland. ' It is also possible that small areas of previously unmapped Federally regulated wetlands may be impacted by the potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. Such wetlands would be expected to be primarily associated with stream corridors. Potential impacts to the Head Corners and other potential wetlands in the Town of Lansing Planning Area involve degradation of wetland quality and loss of habitat. 5.6.2 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are identified. The route for the sewer lines and the pump stations should be surveyed by a qualified wetlands scientist to determine if any Federal wetlands are present. Mitigation measures for crossing any such wetlands, if discovered, would be as follows. Prior to construction, all Federally protected wetlands would be identified in the final project documents and plans and required permitting would be completed. See Section 4.5.2 for a discussion of permitting requirements associated with the US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12. ' All Federally protected wetlands would be treated in a similar manner where construction methods are concerned. Construction within or near these ' designated wetlands would conform to the project -specific requirements set I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 l __ 84 forth in the permit documentation. General construction and restoration techniques recommended include, but are not limited to, the following: • The wetland crossing will be designed to minimize the length of any right-of-way constructed parallel to a stream course. Wide track (low pressure) equipment will be used whenever ' possible to minimize soil impacts to wetlands. When low-pressure equipment cannot be used, equipment will work on mats, or take other steps to minimize soil disturbance. ' All staging areas for wetland crossings will be kept at least 100 feet away from the wetland edge. No refueling, equipment repair or lubricating will be allowed within 100 feet of a wetland unless said wetland is located immediately adjacent to a road crossing, with limited access, and therefore requires such activity. Proper spill ' containment will be used to isolate these activities and minimize the potential for spills in such instances. • Silt fences will be set up on either side of the wetland work path to contain trench spoils and prevent siltation of adjacent wetland areas. Materials will be temporarily side -cast for the minimum time possible, and will not be placed in such a manner that would allow it to be dispersed by currents or other forces. • Trench plugs will be installed at either end of the wetland crossing. _ • The top 6 to 12 inches of muck wetland soils will be separated from the underlying subsoil during excavation and the soils will be placed back in the trench in their original layers after installation of the sewer main. • Wetland contours will be restored to original conditions to prevent any damming of water flows across the wetland. If the, original contours were irregular (e.g., hummocks), the restoration should mimic that condition, as opposed to an artificially smooth surface. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 i - 8s { The trench will not be constructed in a manner that would drain the wetland. ■ Any exposed slopes and stream banks must be stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line crossing of each wetland and/or waterbody. r f Documentation (written and photographic) of pre- and post -construction conditions will be maintained. ■ Temporary dewatering facilities, for the dewatering of the wetland trench, will be installed in uplands. The dewatering facilities may include ' siltation bags or haybales wrapped in geotextile fabric to form a temporary basin into which water from the trench is pumped to settle out. ■ The conditions at some wetland crossings, such as open water or unstable soils, may make trenching difficult and unacceptable from a construction standpoint. In these areas, a directional bore crossing method may be ' used. The potential impact from directional boring is the potential of leakage of the cutting and lubricating fluid. The starting and ending points for the directional bore will be in uplands. The directional bore work areas will be protected with silt fences in order to contain any surface outflows of the liquid. Fluid flow controls will be available to quickly seal any leakage. Any leakage will be removed from the boring location, and the area restored prior to removal of silt fences. If this potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area is eventually proposed, then alternative routes should be considered during the detailed planning stage that avoid impacts to the Head Corners wetland. -5.7 Unique Natural Areas 5.7.1 Impacts Impacts to Unique Natural Areas in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are i_ discussed in Section 5.4.1. 5.7.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for impacts to Unique Natural Areas in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are discussed in Section 5.4.2. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 mo ' 5.8 Climate and Air Resources ' 5.8.1 Impacts The potential construction of sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area ' would not have any direct impacts to air resources, other than the potential for generating dust during construction. ' 5.8.2 Mitigation Measures ' Mitigation measures for construction generated dust are discussed in Section 4.3.2. ' 5.9 Visual Resources 5.9.1 Impacts The construction of potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area is not anticipated to have any significant impacts to visual resources. The potential sewer lines would be underground. The pump stations would be small structures with no significant visual impact. Landscaping would be provided around the pump station buildings. 5.9.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are identified since no adverse impacts have been identified. ' 5.10 Odors ' 5.10.1 Impacts Impacts from odors from potential pump stations in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.10.1. ' 5.10.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for odors from potential pump stations in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.10.2. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 87 5.11 Noise 5.11.1 Impacts Impacts from noise from potential pump stations in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area in Section 4.11.1. ' 5.11.2 Mitigation Measures ' Mitigation measures for noise from potential pump stations in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area at Section 4.11.2. 5.12 Cultural Resources ' 5.12.1 Impacts Impacts to cultural resources from potential sewer construction in the Town ' of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area at Section 4.12.1. 5.12.2 Mitigation Measures ' Mitigation measures for impacts to cultural resources from potential sewer construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area at Section 4.12.2. 5.13 Land Use and Zoning 1 5.13.1 Impacts The construction of potential sewers within the Town of Lansing, Planning ' Area would have no direct impacts to land use and zoning. Indirect impacts are discussed in Section 6.5.6. ' 5.13.2 Mitigation Measures ' .No mitigation measures are identified as no adverse impacts have been identified. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 88 1 5.14 Transportation 5.14.1 Impacts The construction of potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area ' would have no direct impacts on transportation patterns once completed. Indirect impacts are discussed in Section 6.5.5. ' Project construction associated with potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area would have the potential to disrupt traffic. Permits would be ' required from New York State, Tompkins County and the Town of Lansing for construction in their respective rights -of -way. 5.14.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for transportation impacts from potential sewer ' construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area are identical to those discussed for the Town of Lansing Service Area at Section 4.14.2. ' 5.15. Demographics 5.15.1 Impacts ' The construction of potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area p g g ' would have no direct impacts on demographic characteristics. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. ' 5.15.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are identified as no impacts have been identified. ' 5.16 Fiscal Conditions ' 5.16.1 Impacts Funding mechanisms have not been identified for potential sewer ' construction in the Town of Lansing Planning Area. Therefore, no assessment of potential impacts can be made at this time. ' 5.16.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are identified as no impacts have been identified. ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 89 5.17 School Districts 5.17.1 Impacts The construction of potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area would have no direct impact on school districts. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. 5.17.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are identified as no impacts have been identified. 5.18 Community Services 5.18.1 Impacts The construction of potential sewers in the Town of Lansing Planning Area would have no direct impacts on community services. Secondary impacts are discussed in Section 6. 5.18.2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are identified as no impacts have been identified. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 FI 11 �l 1 —" _ -1 .�> v ROAD:. 4B , y \� , ,L ;xr° N = "a{ " ROAD I ul TEE ROgO 1:55,000 Re st Miles 0 0.5 1 2 34 {' - - BU ..'`. CA 0 Municipal Boundary Minimum Depth to Bedrock (inches) s. `i' "'' 4,1 0 I 0 r~ '; Sewer Planning Area 0 0 Q Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area - g Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area 12 N Roads 14 1a State Highway 21 °a County Highway - 22 Local Road - 24 25 0 26 27 :r. _ 30 38 ® 42 WIN Cha cn COMPA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants ToWn of Lansi Town bf Groton ' ® T f UIy`9T4e !4 D `� / 89 �fla a of Lansing 13 96 'AGON 0- 13 13 ' village �I Cayuga H h L� 79 366 Town of D r y d i z o City of I ac o 0 327 To 1 t h\ o 11 Town of 79 t - z HER 13 6B Town of Carotin 11 —� - _ own of T wn of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary Village of Lansing 0 2 4 8 =1 Study Area Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map — State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area — Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 39. Minimum Depth to Bedrock and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers. created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Sm1e: Various; see maps Figure 39 01 ROAD,/ 34Ne °TownLof°Lansin( �.. �,> ,-` �LII, '/i r i ; ==-?' Ik 4Jj' //, r/ ,r w ;/% r'RANKLINbR /.. 1�/ " Ji" 1> InIX- -_ -- - - -- - � - - ___ �,�� Ja�l,�'' /i% i ; � j,� �i,'dp\?�;'' /�.��I'2i�fiP! 'i/I�'•• w.ROAD' 1:55,000 ; Miles 0 0.5 1 2 WA /A ! YERI 34 UR m f. Ot Lj rhc� - i _ _ _ _-_ : .,.. -- _ ` I, �; ,,�,; =,• . Fes. `�;; 34 Xn I " i HE Municipal Boundary Sewer Planning AreaDICK O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area`-::= ;V <_ 1�- Potential Sewer Lines in Planning Area = j > Roads �j m ,s State Highway - _ _ -; `��I; p OAKCREST R County Highway Local Road Minimum Depth to Water Table (inches) 0 �4. 6 S 10 20 30 36 THE Chazen COMPAISIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Td,ivn of Lansi vmage Cayuga Hi 79 City of 327 Town of own of IT,��n�o f N e w f i a '34 Lj Created by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Date: um Depth to Water Table and Potential July 12, 2002 S"Ie: Lansing Planning Area Sewers. Various; see maps m ry 0 2 4 $ 0 Study Area Boundary Figure 40. Mini Town of Municipal Bounda MII@S f'r� Area shown on large-scale map - State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Figure 40 n 1 C P sIII E '/GREENf BOWE/3 `. VE ?-280 i i ; ROAD //;ROAD = _UNA=24;'i''r. ;� -. '/'f;:%,,�34 - °-Town�"of Lansi�ri-g, -_ C•-��' p �e i o �' , '�' �'� A,55'P '/: f , , ' o UNA /PERUVIL NA= ry m m 53. • / r r�. Municipal Boundary _ __;'/r':4�3JVu Sewer Planning Area UNA-63 Potential P _ � � / /\-V O umpstations in Planning Area '. = - _ _ `-`�� / ' .TEE R�°' oqo' Potential Se 34 wer Lines in Planning Area �;. ==G�17`UG�1•LilHES; Roads ;' ; ', : •; ' WATERWAGONF State Hi hwa = - 1JAK' " 13 County Highway _ -_ -_ _ _ _ -.- }; K �L- " f % o a Local Road l Cayuga Lake34 UniqueNatural Areas Site Code, Site Name = - m l�' ` %: ,: i:/ j _ n UNA-101, Newman Tract z HER UNA-102, Renwick Slope = - =--- —rxl [� UNA-103, McKinneys Twin Glens and Lake C - - t.,; _ /�uR'ICK HILL UNA.90 0 UNA-24, Lake Cliffs, North of Myers Point v UNA-28, Ludlowville Woods UNA-52, DEC Mapped Wetland (Code WG14) _ •r- .�I� - - -- _____ UNA-53, Portland Point Quarry ___ �NA-8 UNA-54, Minnegar Brook Woods _ UNA-55, Lower Salmon Creek ut� UNA-63, Shurger Glen UNA-64, Lake Cliffs, South of Portland UNA-65, Head Corners Wetland UNA-66, Cornell Ponds #1 and DEC Mapped (Code WG21) UNA-67, Dryden -Lansing Swamp _ UNA-88, Airport Ponds, Wetland = UNA-89, Lake Cliffs, McKinney's Point to Bolton Point UNA-90, Esty's Glen =41 TH E a n PANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants OAKCRES RON Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights N wE 1s 1 : 55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T6Wn of Lansi 2�f Ulp" 96 vniage Cayuga Hi 79 City of 327 Town of 0 Disclaimer: Town V Groton ie of Lansing � own of o— n of Newfiel 34 Lj Municipal Boundary Study Area Boundary 2 4 6 FIWArea shown on large-scale map Mlles = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Unique Natural Area boundaries were delineated by field biologists based on a review of air photographs, digital GIS base map data (roads, building footprints, 20-foot contours and streams) and field visits. Unique Natural Area boundaries are approximate and should be used for general planning purposes only. As a practical matter, Tompkins County does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information portrayed. The end -user of this map agrees to accept the data "as -is" with full knowledge that errors and omissions may exist, and to hold harmless the County for any damages that may result from inappropriate use of this map. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 41. Unique Natural Areas and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers. []sated by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 41 Q Intersection between sewer and a protected stream 14 °:Town ot,Lansing �- a6 'G712"CTG�Il LIKE- a� N W�E WA 5 Rux 1 55,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 34 - -- -:e-:::•�_�; a :>>.-~<� __=__ _ R Intersections between potential planning area sewer and streams *Sewer intersects an unprotected stream - SNAIEC *Sewer intersects a protected stream Municipal Boundary µ- nr-'- `-tr= - _ r"xG (_ �] Sewer Planning Area Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area -_ : ` ,-;=:_K,:: u ;•: ,sg O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area Protected Streams Unprotected Streams - Roads -_ 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Chazen COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. sirl 0 j c , � ass Town f Groton \ 34B e of LansingqDryd i366 Town Town of Ffcf I' 79 .� 6B 13 Town of Caro Pin . own of `�l�j T wn of Newfiei '34 M ® Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Municipal Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Geated by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect ° July 12, 2002 Figure 42. Stream Crossings Within the Town of Lansing Sak; Sewer Planning Area. Various; see maps Figure 42 l � ass Town f Groton \ 34B e of LansingqDryd i366 Town Town of Ffcf I' 79 .� 6B 13 Town of Caro Pin . own of `�l�j T wn of Newfiei '34 M ® Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Municipal Boundary Miles Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Geated by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect ° July 12, 2002 Figure 42. Stream Crossings Within the Town of Lansing Sak; Sewer Planning Area. Various; see maps Figure 42 l - -Town of Lansir" `• - _ '=- - = ��, `' ; L 1 . 55,000 Miles 0.5 1 2 - - - - � .��% RUN+'' '' � ; / • e ol oW 34 IF yv sm i Municipal Boundary ti I , �_• —Sewer Planning Area Ne O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area FEMA Floodplain Category Area inundated by 100-year flooding; no base flood elevations determined Area inundated by 100-year flooding; base flood elevations determined 0 Area that is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains Roads ,s State Highway _ •_. County Highway Local Road 111180 Ra en PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants RDRD NICNORY MDLLOW� PD sty Wg D / / ; •"4: /''--�°•'" r i Village of Lansing — Village of Cayuga Heights CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi 222 34 4 4B Town Groton \b f u'l s 4113 �f m 89 VHa a of Lansing 13 96 �1 village 13 13 Cayuga H h 366 Town of Dryd \ City of I ac \(I 327 To - I th \.a Town of Town of Carolin own of �� o wn of Newfie, '--L—j 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Q Study Area Boundary Mlles Area shown on large-scale map = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 43. FEMA Floodplains and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers. created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 scale: various; see maps Figure 43 Fj p 413 49 `" E -i647 UGr134lKE 3 _- - -- - _ 1 . 55,000 Miless' _, _�•i=il' _ a : = ws aS m b _ - - - - - nua 0 3.5 7 14 _ p Municipal Boundary r_ NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands _- - Sewer Planning Area , ..._, .< r O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area Roads ,s State Highway ' County Highway Local Road THE Chan COMPA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 on fm E34 ravw ao awccaest aonp Village of Lansing o` ppp GP. �R p p — Village of Cayuga Heights New England Office: Stratis Business Centers 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(781) 556-1037 North Country Office: 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 812-0513 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Tdvn of Lansi f U! Town 'if Groton of Lansing vurage l Cayuga H h 79 366 Town of Dryd City of I ac 327 To 'd /th a Town of 79 6B 13 Town of Carotin own of wn of Newfie" 34 Municipal Boundary OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown on large-scale map Miles = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, IVY showing the study area Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 44. NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands and Town of Lansing Planning Area Potential Sewers. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 s.ie: Various; see maps Figure 44 01 Towitof Lansing' Cfl2'ilisB,tillt IN 1 . 55,000 = _ C I Miles 0 0.5 1 2;; •.; ia.. 34 21 o 1 PPgp v ON CPESr RORD _n -. •�1 S .!0/Y4 HICNO0.Y 11IXLOWl �_ --_ - •ir _ _ �_, v `PO -_ _ ...a fir- .'f,�` •� - _ } t � POP GPI D, C! E Municipal Boundary USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Sewer Planning Area O Potential Pumpstations in Planning Area _ - - Potential Sewer Lines for Planning Area Roads _ ,3 State Highway _ _ - _,_ :4•,=: P County Highway Local Road THE Chap COMPA91ES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 T n of Lansi I 413 r �f U/y e� 89 96 bmage Cayuga H h 79 City of 1 ac 327 To/ Town of ite T1 222 3 Town Jf Groton 4B Vll • e of Lansing 13 13 13 366 Town of Dryd Ith a 79 Town of Carotin own of `o wn �of Newfiel 34 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Study Area Boundary Village of Lansing Miles Area shown on large-scale map Stale Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area — Village of Cayuga Heights New England Office: Stratis Business Centers 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(781) 556-1037 North Country Office: 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 812-0513 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municioal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect Figure 45. Federally Regulated Wetlands and Potential Town of Lansing Planning Area Sewers. created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps Figure 45 0 90 0 .1 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 6.1 PURPOSE This section of the DEIS assesses the potential secondary and induced growth impacts that may occur by constructing new sewers, not only within the Town of Lansing Service and Planning Areas, but also within the entire DEIS Study Area. The purpose of conducting this assessment is to provide the project sponsors with a sense of the magnitude of impacts that could occur if growth was to occur at both historic and accelerated rates. In preparing this analysis it should be noted that numerous assumptions necessarily have to be made. The purpose of the analysis is therefore not to set forth a set of potential future growth impacts and claim that they are cast in concrete; rather, it is to give the municipalities a sense of some possible future outcomes and, by doing so, allow them to consider whether their planning tools are adequate to cope with such outcomes and also to determine if the service area boundaries are environmentally acceptable. Whenever- possible the assessment provides context; that is, it compares potential future outcomes with what has occurred over the past ten years. The analysis was conducted for a 20-year period. 6.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology for this analysis is as follows. Three potential future growth scenarios are assessed. Scenario 1 was considered the historic case. In Scenario 1, growth is assumed to occur at historic rates and in similar patterns to that which has occurred over the last ten years. Scenario 2 was considered a moderately accelerated growth case. In Scenario 2, it was assumed that rates of growth would remain unchanged, but that more growth would tend to occur within the DEIS Study Area because of the future presence of sewers, including both sewers proposed as part of this project and sewers that might be constructed in the future. Scenario 3 was considered a highly accelerated growth case. In Scenario 3, it was assumed that not only would more growth occur within the DEIS Study Area, but that such growth would also occur at higher rates than in the past. Table 23 summarizes the assumptions for Scenario 1. In Scenario 1, residential and commercial growth is assumed to occur at the same rates as occurred from 1990 to 2000, and the percentage of each municipality's residential growth occurring within the DEIS Study Area was assumed to occur in the same proportion as occurred from 1990 to 2000. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 91 Table 23. Development Scenario 1 Assumptions Town of Lansing 13.18% 10,517 s.f. 50% Village of Lansing 4.15% 45,866 s.f. 100% Town of Dryden 2.12% 21,406 s.f. 75% , Scenario 2, the moderate growth scenario, assumes that growth will continue Ll to occur at historic rates, but that a higher percentage of the growth will occur within the DEIS Study Area. The assumption behind this scenario is that the presence of sewers will not in and of themselves cause more people and businesses to move to the DEIS Study Area, but that a higher proportion of the growth that occurs will occur within the DEIS Study Area because of ' the presence of sewers. In this scenario, it is assumed that the moderate growth rates that have characterized the Ithaca -area community will be unaffected by the proposed project, but that growth will tend to favor the ' DEIS Study Area, as opposed to other locations in Tompkins County. Table 24 summarizes the assumptions for Scenario 2. Table 24. Development ' ,,,,.,, s +2 ' '+ ',,+� r •,,>.. ell ;eai.41,°i," Iteside.ntiaRe identiM"Utowth : �'Develppnientithxnrthe Stidyrea '' ��,�..� .'[....z., .v.. _ �-f� __.:.,s - ,._ �_M •__ i .ram Town of Lansing 13.18% 10,517 s.f. 65% Village of Lansing 4.15% 45,866 s.f._ 100% DTown of Dryden 2.12% 21,406 s.f. 90% ' Scenario 3, the high growth scenario, assumes that growth will occur at higher rates, and that a higher proportion of such growth will occur within the DEIS Study Area. The basic assumption behind this scenario is that the presence of sewers will spur more residential and commercial growth. For purposes of this analysis, the increase was assumed to be 5% in each municipality over a ten-year period, which was then compounded and increased by 5% over a second ten-year period to arrive at 20-year population projections. While there are a number of studies available suggesting that the ' construction of sewers increases growth, the studies reviewed. by the authors of the DEIS did not quantify the rate of increase, or if they did, they were DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 92 ' conducted for large suburban communities with growth pressures and characteristics not at all like the Ithaca -area community. In considering the ' rate of increase to be used in this study, the DEIS authors reviewed historic growth data and considered the general characteristics of the greater Ithaca community. To wit, it is a university oriented community with relatively ' stable employment and slow rates of growth. The major factor leading to rapid increase in population is new employment generation. This factor is not present in the DEIS Study Area. The authors therefore chose a 5% increase ' over 10 years as described above as a reasonable and conservative estimate for the high growth scenario. It should be noted that all scenarios are ' presented for comparison and planning purposes; actual rates of growth may and likely will vary. Table 25 summarizes the assumptions for Scenario 3. ' Table 25. Development Scenario 3 Assumptions Town of Lansing 18.18% 11,319 s.f. 65% Village of Lansing 9.15% 45,866 s.f. 100% ' Town of Dryden 7.12% 23,038 s.f. 90% ' Note that for the Village of Lansing, if the actual average annual commercial growth over the last ten years is assumed to continue for the next twenty years, the theoretical maximum amount of remaining commercial development will be ' exceeded before year twenty. So for purposes of the analysis, the theoretical maximum was used for all scenarios. Note also that for all scenarios, all commercial ' growth in the three municipalities was assumed to occur within the DEIS Study Area, as virtually all the commercial districts lie within this area. Note finally that for the Village of Lansing, all residential development was also assumed to lie ' within the DEIS Study Area for all scenarios, since the entire Village lies within the area. ' Having arrived at population and commercial development projections for the three scenarios, the next step was to assign the growth a specific geographic location. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to make this assignment. GIS ' coverages were used to calculate areas of developable land and to integrate information such as natural resource constraints and zoning that affects the amount of land that can be developed. The study was conducted according to the ' following steps. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 93 1. GIS coverages were assembled for the DEIS Study Area. The following coverages were assembled: tax parcels with associated real property data, existing and proposed sewer mains, sewer planning area boundaries, traffic analysis zones (TAZs), school district boundaries, zoning, soil survey at the association level, slopes (derived from USGS digital elevation models), topography, floodplains and wetlands. These datasets were combined to create a single GIS dataset. The dataset was then "clipped" to the DEIS Study Area boundary of each municipality to create one dataset per municipality. 2. GIS data were queried to determine those lands that were potentially buildable, based on natural resource constraints, and that contained the potential for additional development, based on real property data. The classifications for natural resources constraints were as follows. • Areas with slopes greater than 15% were considered unbuildable. • All wetlands were considered unbuildable. • All areas within the 100-year floodplain were considered unbuildable. • All hydric and organic soil associations and soil associations where depth to bedrock is less than 26 inches were considered unbuildable. Note that it is possible to construct houses on such soils by the use of raised bed septic i systems or other unconventional means; however, in general these soils should be considered as severely constrained. 3. Tax parcel data was classified as either "buildable", "underutilized", or "not buildable" based upon the parcel's property class code. "Buildable" land was land that was vacant and did not have any of the constraints outlined in Step 2. "Not Buildable" land was land that either was significantly constrained as -� outlined in Step 2, or was already developed. "Underutilized land" was land _ U11 that did not have constraints as outlined in Step 2 and that,. although partially developed, still had significant areas of land that could be developed under existing zoning regulations. An example of the latter is a 25-acre ' parcel with a single family house located in an area that allows two acre building lots. For purposes of this analysis, 23 acres of the parcel would be considered available for development. Zoning regulations were applied to the buildable area for each parcel as defined above. The application of zoning regulations resulted in a calculation of the amount of development that could potentially occur if all available land were built upon in accordance with ' zoning regulations. Table 26 summarizes the allowed zoning densities for the affected municipalities. I DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 Table 26. Allowed Zoning Densities S.2, -SS -;;jL; -Y- Prz�X Q E-0 W. IYASIN: Reside tiaT PSI N All ein -i wt e_ree squa/AcreJ W=with water Singwfain V, D T I NW=without water Vni .q' tsy S=with sewer NS=nosewer 71 7 Town of Lansing B1 Commercial, General and Mixed Use -,11- 6*1889,9G 0;627 IR Industrial/Research 'm889 00', Ll Lakeshore �j '0 permitte, 'd -26�88,9.00 & 62 Ll Lake Frontage A& f8 2. R1 Residential Low Density -:-,t, o A) ei N Aifi an� ni mercia �,uses,,, C �co' _WZ L(SY R2 Residential Moderate Density R3 Residential, Mixed -Use 1. , ` " ' �"' - "N"" d ot te� 1 '.- - : ' '0;82,:- _226.'889- RA Rural Apzculture 0 09S, b.62 9- 6 889�00. lVillage of Lansing BTD Business and Technology N&resid6iftia -24,_8 929;2&'. 0. CHT Commercial High Traffic 5 Q res _220!M-3 0:59, CLT Commercial Low Traffic 2 6 t,22926-31--(SJ 0;53'; 7.2 6(S) `4i6fallowed 7:296 HDR High Density Residential '-63( Y'Or-7-3, ;i5480_(Sk-ANJWS)�v` ._-An -n -:17'424(SI 8 712(S�', 0 7 .40(S)0.20(NS1 No§ig-nifidanf, LDR Low Density Residential 2.i S)!'�',OJ47-_(NS 1,45 ,�no permift6 tbeii No''-si an MDR Medium Density Residential, n -:ripe erihitte 0 T)er-Mi e -commercia RSH Research District o- resi en J 32,660`16 0. 7.5 HHSD Human Health Services District "Z Na -b�si entia: 2 2,926.81" 0'53 a4_ _t n Town of Dryden M-A Manufacturing and Assembly 14- M-AA lAdult Uses (see zoning amendment for descrintion) o re�iddiffl 1Q454.32 -90(N-W )di(NS) ,_ ; -signific*ant RB Low Density Residential S), t, ix no -permitt6&. c6mmer6ial ific'ani R-B-1 Low Density Agricultural - Residential 4-436(W-)L yermitte 4'"' -hot i-miffed andfs): c ordmercia j _(NW -,45 )-or1. (NS 9�_90 MW 6i:(NS)-1-'_; MW br�(NS)";_.,- R-C Moderate Density Agricultural - Residential F.- , 'K 5-. 12•glmiind(S)'�;: -2 -at 49. and (S)" 68.,60, `13,0 �:-0.30 0-11 Village of Cayuga Heights C R1 Higher Density Agriclutural - Commercial - Residential Commercial District Residence District an (.W)diid( 1 6 0 3 0 0 0.30: c Y� 0:30' z4 o sign can resi enda 13,0.67.90 'no significant' -Pia 34 ermitt �;not 'knii ed- comm6rcial..'"., 'no si�iiificAnt - -.-commercial, -6 -.4: RM Multi-ole Housing District *Town of Lansing. No value available for when sewer is available "Assume two -bedroom house. 94 4. Population growth was converted to residential dwelling units by using the average household size as reported by the U.S. Census for each municipality. See Table 15 for these data. 5. As discussed above, dwelling units were assigned to the DEIS Study Area in C each municipality. The number of dwelling units assigned to the DEIS Study Area in each municipality was the same as occurred from 1990 to 2000 for Scenario 1 and was increased by 15% for Scenarios 2 and 3. Note that since all of the Village of Lansing lies within the DEIS Study Area, 100% of the development in the Village of Lansing in all scenarios was assumed to occur ' within the DEIS Study Area. amount of residential development for each scenario as calculated in step 6. The amo t p p 5 was assigned among the vacant buildable and underutilized parcels C calculated in step 3. This assignment was made on a proportional basis such that if, for example, 15% of the vacant buildable and underutilized land in the Study Area portion of a municipality fell within a given zoning district, then 15% of the projected growth was assigned to that district. This distribution formed the basis for the analysis of municipal impacts in this DEIS. Figures 46-48 illustrate the buildable vacant and underutilized areas -� by zoning district. F11 7. TAZs, as provided by the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council and mapped in step 1, were overlain on the residential development i assignments calculated in Step 6. This resulted in the assignment of i development to individual TAZs. The results were provided to the ITCTC for incorporation into the T-model for Tompkins County. Figures 49-51 illustrate buildable vacant and underutilized areas by TAZ. Note that for purposes of I JI the traffic model, traffic from the proposed Kingdom Farm development in the Town of Lansing was incorporated based on estimates from the Draft Environmental Impact statement for that project. 8. School districts, as mapped in step 1, were overlain on the residential development assignments calculated in step 6. This resulted in the assignment of development to school districts. The results were used to assess impacts to each school district. Figures 52-54 illustrate buildable ' vacant and underutilized areas by school district. 9. Commercial development for Scenarios 1 and 2 was calculated by averaging Cthe total commercial development square footage in each municipality, as derived from building permit data, over the last ten years, and then applying that yearly average over the 20-year study period. For Scenario 3 the total square footage was increased by 0.5%/year. All commercial development was 1 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 95 u assumed to occur within the DEIS Study Area, as the DEIS Study Area contains nearly all of the significant commercially zoned lands in each municipality. Commercial development was apportioned among the zoning districts, TAZs and school districts in the same manner as for residential development. After the amount of growth within the DEIS Study Area was calculated and assigned to a location for each scenario, the impacts of such growth were calculated and compared between scenarios. For example, once the total population growth for each scenario was calculated, the number of resulting school age children was tallied, and the fiscal impact of educating such children calculated and compared among the scenarios. In comparing the impacts for each scenario, it is important to remember that Scenario 1 is the baseline scenario; that is, it assumes that growth will continue at the same rate and in the same distribution as has occurred over the last ten years. Comparing Scenario 1 with Scenario 2, the moderate growth scenario, and Scenario 3, the high growth scenario, allows an assessment of the potential impacts of accelerated growth in the future. 6.3 RESULTS This section of the DEIS summarizes the results of the analysis. Results are generally compared between cases and, where appropriate, to historical patterns. 6.3.1 Total Theoretical Build -out For the purpose of -context, it is useful to understand the maximum theoretical build -out possible in each municipality. Tables 27-29 present the total theoretical build -out for the DEIS Study Area for each municipality. It is emphasized that this is a theoretical number and assumes that all land that is not already built upon (or is underdeveloped) and does not have development constraints is developed in accordance with current zoning regulations. It is also pointed out that the residential totals are not cumulative; they are presented for each building type as though all future residential development were of that type. For example, in the Town of Lansing, the maximum amount of residential development that could occur is estimated at 5,441 single family dwellings or 8,494 duplexes or 7,041 triplexes or 19,844 multi -family dwellings. The major point to be understood from these tables is that, with the exception of commercial development in the Village of Lansing, the future growth projections for all scenarios are significantly less than the maximum amount of development that could theoretically occur under current zoning. 1 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 96 ' Table 27. Town of Lansing Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build - out ' •• o D• • ..•.„ �� .,... • 9• o• • Commercial 72,408,434 s.f. ' Residential Duplex Residential Multi -Family 8,494 d.u. 19,844 d.u. Residential Single Family 5,441 d.u. Residential Triplex 7,041 d.u. ' Table 28. Village of Lansing Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build - out Commercial 917,313 s.f. Residential Duplex - no sewer 2,431 d.u. Residential Duplex - sewer 2,670 d.u. Residential Multi -Family 236 d.u. Residential single family - no sewer 1,461 d.u. Residential single family - sewer 1,726 d.u. u Residential triplex 236 d.u. L�i Table 29. Town of Dryden Study Area Maximum Theoretical Build - out CI Commercial 5,229,477 s.f. Residential Duplex 14,783 d.u. Residential Multi -Family 2,932 d.u. Residential Single Family 7,592 d.u. Residential Triplex 1,609 d.u. 6.3.2 Historical Growth Data In order to provide context for the projections that follow, it is useful to look C" at historical growth data in the DEIS Study Area communities over the last ten years. Data for population, building permits and commercial square footage is summarized in Table 30. Note that with respect to the Village of ' Lansing, the data were adjusted to delete commercial projects that involved the re -use of existing buildings or that were not truly commercial in nature, ' such as the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Note also that the data in ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 97 Table 30 is for the entire municipality, not just that portion in the Study Area. Table 30. Historical Growth Data 1990 - 2000 Town of Lansing 1,225 Town of Dryden 281 Village of Lansing 136 [1] No data for 1991, 1992 [2] Data adjusted per Village Mayor 6.3.3 Projected Population 533 822 84,134[1] 288 744 214,062 76 197 485,620[2] The projected number of new dwelling units and the projected population increase for each municipality and. scenario are illustrated in Table 31. The number of dwelling units in each scenario was obtained by dividing the population increase by the average household size in the municipality. Note that these projections are for the Study Area only and are for the next 20 years. Table 31 Summary of Study Area Population and Dwelling Unit Increase By Municipality and Scenario Scenario 1 Population Dwelling Units Scenario 2 Population Dwelling Units Scenario 3 Population Dwelling Units 1.478 435 289 635 179 140 1,921 I 522 I 289 825 215 140 2,712 1,796 654 1,164 739 317 Examination of Table 31 (projections) results in the following observations. • For the Town of Lansing, the moderate growth scenario projects an increase of about 440 people over the historic growth scenario. The high growth scenario projects an increase of about 1230 people over the historic growth scenario. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 98 • For the Town of Dryden, the moderate growth scenario projects an increase of about 90 people over the historic growth scenario. This increase is small because the moderate growth scenario assumes only that more of those who live in Dryden in the future will choose to live in the DEIS Study Area, and under existing conditions, most of them already do so. The high growth scenario projects an increase of about 1360 people over the historic growth scenario. This increase is rather large because the Town's existing growth rate (2.1% over ten years) is very low, so projecting an additional 5% increase over the existing growth rate each ten years for twenty years . results in a significant impact. • For the Village of Lansing, the historic and moderate growth scenarios are identical because the entire village is located within the DEIS Study Area. The high growth scenario projects an increase of 365 persons over the historic growth scenario. Table 32 summarizes the commercial projections for each scenario for'each municipality for the 20-year analysis period. Table 32 Summary of Study Area Commercial Development Projections By Municipality and Scenario awn-af Lansing;;iv�af ,Dr�de�� � �Vxl age of a�sirig:` Scenariosand 2 210,340 s.f. 428,120 sl / Scenario 3 226,379 s.f. 460,764 s.f. 917,313 s.f. Recall that for commercial growth, Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical because all commercial growth is assumed to occur in the DEIS Study Area. The difference between the high growth scenario and the historic and moderate growth scenarios is relatively small in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden. For the Village of Lansing, all three scenarios are identical because it is assumed that all remaining available commercial land will be developed over the next 20 years inasmuch as historic growth, if continued, will result in the development of all available and buildable commercial land before year twenty. Note that the historical projections would suggest that 1.45 million square feet of new commercial development would occur in the Village of Lansing within the Study Period. It is possible that, if demand continues, some of this development may instead relocate to other communities, thus increasing the commercial growth rates there. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 99 [j Based on the allowed uses in each municipality's zoning ordinance and the location of developable land, commercial development was divided into retail, ' office and industrial components. This information is summarized in Table 33. ' Table 33 Summary of Study Area Commercial Growth Projections By Type of Development Scenarios 1 and 2 Retail 125390 s.f. 212370 s.f. 55658 s.f. Office 69196 s.f. 70789 s.f. 861655 s.f. Industrial 15754 s.f. 144961 s.f. Scenario 3 Retail 134952 s.f. 228562 s.f. 55658 s.f. Office 74471 s.f. 76187 s.f. 861655 s.f. Industrial 16956 s.f. 156015 s.f. 6.3.4 School District Projections ' School district boundaries are not coterminous with municipal boundaries. Thus, it is necessary to allocate the population increase in each municipality by school district. The method for doing so is discussed above. Once ' population was assigned by school district, school age children projections were made by multiplying the projected population by the percentage of school age children, as given by the U.S. Census, in each municipality. ' According to the U.S. Census, 18.7% of the Town of Lansing's population is of school age, 12.7% of the Village of Lansing's population is of school age, and 18.4% of the Town of Dryden's population is of school age. Note that these are ' relatively low proportions, resulting in the relatively low projections discussed below. It is important to remember that with respect to school age children projections, the projections are from the DEIS Study Area only, and do not ' include projections from the non-DEIS Study Area parts of each school district. It is also. important to remember that all projections are for the entire 20-year analysis period. ' Table 34 summarizes the total (adult and children) residential population increase projections by municipality and school district. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 100 Table 34 Residential Population Increase Projections By Municipality and ' School t e [ Town of Lansing Scenario 1 86 1,393 (Scenario 2 112 1,810 Scenario 3 156 2,556 ' Town of Dryden Scenario 1 338 2 95 Scenario 2 406 2 114 ' Scenario 3 1,405 2 389 Village of Lansing (Scenario 1 206 82 (Scenario 2 206 82 ' IScenario 3 464 190 Table 35 sums the population projections for each school district in each municipality. Table 35. Residential Population Increase Projections By School District i SD Scenario 1 630 Scenario 2 724 Scenario 3 2,025 1,894 114 2,748 389 Table 36 summarizes the projected number of school children for each district and scenario. Recall that this table is obtained by multiplying the, projected population by the percentage of that population that are of school age, according to the U.S. Census. The following observations can be made about these data. • For the Ithaca City School District, the moderate growth scenario projects an increase of 18 students over the historic growth scenario. The high growth scenario projects an increase of 243 students over the historic growth scenario. • For the Lansing Central School District, the moderate growth scenario projects an increase of 78 students over the historic growth scenario. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 101 ' The high growth scenario projects an increase of 232 students over the historic growth scenario. ' • For the Dryden Central School District, the moderate growth scenario projects an increase of 4 students over the historic growth scenario. The high growth scenario projects an increase of 55 students over the ' historic growth scenario. For context, it is useful to compare these projections with historic enrollment ' in the districts (see Tables 17-19). Between 1992-3 and 2001-2, enrollment in the Ithaca City School District declined by 402 students: The moderate and high growth scenarios would result in a significant reversal of this trend. Between 1989 and 2001, enrollment in the Lansing Central School District increased by 291 students. Scenarios 2 and 3, which project increases over [� twenty years, would both result in increases in line with historic trends in this school district. Between 1990 and 2001, enrollment in the Dryden Central School District decreased by 189 students. Scenarios 2 and 3 would result in a reversal of this trend. ' Table 36. Public School Children Increase Projections By School District i Scenario 1 104 270 17 Scenario 2 122 348 21 Scenario 3 347 502 72 Table 37 allocates the commercial projections by type of use, scenario and school district. These allocations were done in the same manner as for residential development. That .is, projected commercial development was ' allocated to vacant, developable commercially zoned land in proportion to the amount of such land present in each zoning district. The boundaries of the school districts were then mapped to determine in which school district growth would occur. These data are necessary in order to calculate the fiscal impacts for each scenario. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 102 Table 37. Commercial Projections By School District Scenario 1 Retail 552,299 s.f. 113,209 s.f. 90,580 s.f. Office 429,603 s.f. 179,002 s.f. 30,193 s.f. Industrial 14,672 s.f. 15,039 s.f. 131,005 s.f. Scenario 2 Retail 552,299 s.f. 113,209 s.f. I 90,580 s.f. Office 429,603 s.f. 179,002 s.f. 30,193 s.f. Industrial 14,672 s.f. 15,039 s.f. 131,005 s.f. Scenario 3 Retail 562,508 s.f. 121,928 s.f. 97,486 s.f. Office 433,007 s.f. 183,969 s.f. 32,495 s.f. Industrial 15,791 s.f. 16,186 s.f. 140,994 s.f. 6.4 Impacts This section of the DEIS summarizes the potential impacts from population increases, commercial development and increased number of school age children under each scenario described in Section 6.3 above. In assessing potential induced growth impacts in the DEIS Study Area, the key is to compare the impacts from Scenarios 2 and 3, which assume that more growth occurs within the Study Area, with Scenario 1, the base case. Keep in mind that Scenario 2 is the moderately increased growth case, while Scenario 3 is the high rate of increased growth case. Furthermore, where relevant, impacts have been compared to historic trends. 6.4.1 Fiscal Conditions People, households and commercial development all require services from government. The tax revenues from new land uses may or may not pay for the cost of municipal services, depending on a variety of factors including the assessed value of the new uses and the government's current cost structure. An accepted way to evaluate the cost of new development to municipal government is the use of the Proportional Valuation Method as described in The New Practitioners Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. This method compares the costs of servicing new development with the tax revenues from such development. The method assumes that the costs of servicing new residential and commercial development will occur in proportion to the costs of servicing existing development. That is, if 60% of a municipal budget currently is allocated to services provided to the residential sector, and it provides an average of- $2,000 in services/year to each DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 103 household, these totals will remain constant in the future. For purposes of this analysis, new sales tax revenues from commercial development were included in determining the net fiscal impact. Appendix 7 contains worksheets summarizing the results of the municipal fiscal impact analyses. The results of the municipal fiscal -` analysis are presented on an annual basis, and assume that all development has occurred in year one. This tends to overstate the ' impact, since in reality both tax rates and property values are likely to increase over time, thus increasing potential revenues. ' Table 38 summarizes the net fiscal impact to each municipality for each scenario. Table 38. Net Annual Fiscal Impact to Municipalities By Scenario Town of Lansing-132,994.00-179,077.00-259,046.00 Cr Village of Lansing-54,616.00-54,616.00-112,533.00 Town of Dryden 18,171.00 7,305.00-144,632.00 Li It is not surprising that the results show, with the exception of Dryden in the first two scenarios, a negative fiscal impact. This is because the projected development in all scenarios is predominantly residential -' development, and residential development rarely generates sufficient tax revenues to pay for the cost of the municipal services required. i Table 39 compares the impacts from Scenarios 2 and 3 with Scenario 1 on an annual basis. This table provides the most relevant comparison of the potential municipal fiscal impact caused by induced growth that may be associated with the proposed project. ' Table 39. Comparison of Municipal Impacts By Scenario L Town of Lansing-46,083.00-126.052.00 Village of Lansing 0.00-57,917.00 Town of Dryden-10,866.00-126,461.00 ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 104 ' The results show minor fiscal shortfalls for the Towns of Lansing and Dryden in the moderate growth scenario, and somewhat increased shortfalls for all municipalities in the high growth scenario. These results are consistent with the general observation that government costs (and as a result, taxes) tend to increase the most in rapidly growing communities. However, for this analysis, the results are relatively minor in the context of the overall municipal budgets, which are in excess of $3.5 million in the Village of Lansing, $4.5 million in ' the Town of Dryden and $5 million in the Town of Lansing. The high growth scenario would result in a budget deficit of 1.7% in the Village of Lansing, 2.5% in the Town of Lansing and 2.8% in the Town of Dryden. 6.4.2 School Districts ' Table 40 summarizes the difference in school enrollment projections between Scenarios 2 and 3 and Scenario 1. Table 40. Comparison of School Enrollment Impacts By Scenario D Ithaca Citv SD 18 243 Lansing Central SD 78 232 Drvden SD 4 55 Li Note that the figures above are for the 20-year analysis period. Given that the 2001 enrollment for the Ithaca City School District was in excess of 5,600, the 2001 enrollment for the Lansing Central School rDistrict was in excess of 1,300 and the 2001 enrollment for the Dryden School District was in excess of 2,000, the projected increases, which D would be spread out over 13 grades, are not major. For example, in the high growth case (Scenario 3), there would be an addition of 12 students/year in the Ithaca City School District spread out over all the grades. Although this is an increase over current trends, it is certainly not a major increase. The difference would be similar in Scenario 3 for Lansing, and less for all other districts and scenarios. Just as was calculated for the municipal budget, it is also possible to assess the fiscal impacts to the affected school districts from educating more children. Worksheets for this analysis are found in Appendix 7. Note that such analyses invariably show negative impacts because the DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 105 taxes paid by residential properties almost never cover the cost of educating the children generated from that property. For example, dividing the total school budget by the number of pupils for each of the affected districts shows a per pupil cost of $12,188 for the Ithaca City School District, $12,947 for the Lansing School District and $11,126 for the Dryden School District. The fiscal analysis for school children also follows the widely accepted method set forth in The New Practitioners Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. Table 41 summarizes the net 20-year fiscal impact to each school district for each scenario. Note that as with the municipal impact, this was calculated as though all students entered the districts at one time in year one. In reality, the impact would occur over the 20-year time period and be significantly dampened over that set forth in table 41. Note also that this assessment does not consider future capital construction and transportation costs because their need depends on a variety of factors outside of the scope of this DEIS. It is certainly possible that future growth, whether or not influenced by the proposed project, could result in the need for capital and/or transportation improvements. The information in this section of the DEIS is provided as a tool to assist school districts with their future planning for these needs. Table 41. Net 20-Year Fiscal Impact to School Districts Ithaca City-399,702.00-490,409.00-1,513,034.00 Lansing Central 1,295,831.00-1,685,923.00-2,379,598.00 Dryden-85,896.00-104,183.00-368,442.00 Table 42 illustrates the impacts on an annualized basis. That is, the net 20-year impact is divided by 20. Note that in reality the annual impact would vary by the number of school children actually entering each system in each year, the ratio of commercial development to residential development and other factors such as State Aid formulas. Table 42. Projected Annual Fiscal Impact to School Districts Ithaca City-19,985.00-24,520.00-75,652.00 Lansing Central-64,792.00-84,296.00-118,980.00 Dryden 4,295.00-5,209.00 18,442.00 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 106 Table 43 summarizes the differences between Scenarios 2 and 3 and Scenario 1. Table 43 Comparison of Annual Fiscal Impacts to School Districts by Scenario Ithaca 1 .. Lansing Central 1 ' 1 :: Drvden SD ' The results show relatively small negative impacts for all school districts. As noted above, this is not surprising because the revenues from residential development almost never pay for the costs of educating the resulting students. However, within the context of a 2001 budgets of more than $68 million for the Ithaca City School District, $17 million for the Lansing Central School District and $22 million for the Dryden Central School District, and given that the results will in reality be spread out over 20 years, the overall impact appears relatively small. The high growth scenario would result in annual budget deficits of 0.8% for the Ithaca City School District, 0.6% for the Dryden Central School District and 0.31% for the Lansing Central School District. The results would be even smaller in the other scenarios. 6.4.3 Community Services To gauge the impact of potential population growth associated with the 7 proposed project on community services, it is necessary to turn to published planning standards. These standards provide guidelines for standard service levels for a given population. The reference used in this study was the Development Impact Assessment Handbook, published by the Urban Land Institute in 1994. Note that this reference provides national standards and does not distinguish between rural, suburban and urban communities. Thus, it does not take into account local variations in service provision patterns. As an ' example, the standard for police protection, which includes higher crime urban areas, may be overstated for lower crime rural/suburban 1 - DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 107 1 L communities such as those in the Study Area. Therefore, in this respect, the analysis provided is conservative in nature. 6.4.3.1 Fire Protection The impact of population increases associated with induced growth on _ municipal fire fighting companies can be gauged according to the number of personnel and vehicles in each fire company. For the ' purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that an active volunteer was the equivalent of an employed firefighter (`personnel'). Also for the purposes of this analysis, each firefighting vehicle was assumed to have been of equal utility in responding to emergencies. Drvden Fire Department As described in Section 3.16 of this report, the Dryden Fire Department serves the Town of Dryden, along with the Brooktondale, ' Etna, Freeville, McLean and Varna Fire Departments. The planning standards for firefighting are 1.65 persons and 0.2 vehicles per a ' population of 1,000. Based on this standard, Table 44 shows the required number of personnel and vehicles for each scenario. Table 44. Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of Firefighting Vehicles and Personnel for the Town of Dryden. (Population 13,532 13,967 I 14,054 I 15,328 -- I Existing Required (Vehicles 8 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.1 Personnel 50 22.3 23 23.2 25.3 *Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000). t Table 44 illustrates that the Town of Dryden has more vehicles and firefighting personnel than is required under planning standards for existing conditions. Further, the Department has sufficient personnel i and firefighting under all future scenarios. Additionally, as there are five more fire departments that serve the Town of Dryden, it is reasonable to assume that existing personnel and vehicles of the six ' fire departments under all scenarios would adequately serve the Town of Dryden. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 108 LansinL- Fire Department ' As described in Section 3.16 of this report, the Lansing Fire Department serves the Town and Village of Lansing. The planning standards for firefighting are 1.65 persons and 0.2 vehicles per a ' population of 1,000. Based on this standard, Table 45 shows the required number of personnel and vehicles based on. the projected population. C 1 Table 45. Existing and Projected Population and the Existing and Ca Required Number of Firefighting Vehicles and Personnel for the Town and Village of Lansing. Population 13,938 15,705 16,148 1 17,304 Existing Required Vehicles 15 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.5 (Personnel 54 23 25.9 26.6 28.6 *Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Table_ 45 shows that Lansing Fire Department currently has more ' firefighting vehicles and personnel than are required to serve the Town and Village of Lansing under existing conditions, according to planning standards. Further, the Department currently has enough vehicles [I and personnel to serve the Town and Village of Lansing under Scenarios 2 and 3. 6.4.3.2 Police Protection Determining the impact of future development on police protection in C! the DEIS Study Area is difficult to quantify since various police departments serve multiple jurisdictions in and around the DEIS Study Area, and these jurisdictions are much larger than the DEIS Study Area. With this fact in mind, this section of the report discusses, in general terms, the potential impact on police services as a result of ' population increases that may be associated with the proposed project. In general, the impact of proposed development. on police services can be gauged according to the number of personnel in a police ' department. For the purposes of this analysis, `personner includes sworn officers and excludes clerical staff. The planning standard for DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 109 police service is _two (2) personnel per a population of 1,000. As described in Section 3.16, the Tompkins County Police Department and the New York State Police cover the DEIS Study Area. The Tompkins County Sheriffs Department covers the DEIS Study Area, as well as the rest of Tompkins County. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Tompkins County had a population of 96,501. Based on the planning standard above, a police force of 193 should serve Tompkins County. The County falls considerably short of the recommended standard since its total police force is comprised of 30 officers. However, the Tompkins County Sheriffs Office is not the only police coverage in Tompkins County. The New York State Police also covers Tompkins County (including the DEIS Study Area) and there are various municipal law enforcement agencies throughout Tompkins County, such as the Village of Dryden Police Department, the Village of Cayuga Heights Police Department and the City of Ithaca Police Department (which, although outside the DEIS Study Area, have combined nearly 100 additional officers). Additionally, there are police forces associated with Cornell -University and Ithaca College that further increase the number of police officers available regionally. The Freeville Station of the New York State Police Department covers the DEIS Study Area as well as the rest of Tompkins County and Tioga and Cortland Counties. Twenty-nine (29) officers serve Tompkins County, while four (4) officers serve Cortland, Tompkins, and Tioga Counties. If it is assumed that each of the four (4) officers spend one- third of their time in Tompkins County, then it can be stated that there are roughly 30 officers of the Freeville Station that serve Tompkins County. In addition, other officers from the New York State Police may be called in on an as needed basis in the event of an emergency. Based on the above description of the Tompkins County Sheriffs Office ' and the New York State Police, there are roughly 60 officers serving Tompkins County, plus municipal law enforcement agencies, the size of which have not been quantified here. A combined total strength of ' 60 officers (not including municipal police agencies) falls short of the recommended standard of 191 officers for Tompkins County. However, if the other agencies serving specific municipalities and organizations are factored in, there are more than the recommended number of officers serving the county. To the extent that the proposed project ' causes induced growth and population increase, additional demands would be placed on law enforcement agencies. It is reasonable to DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ' 110 conclude that this is a county -wide issue, and not one attributable to the proposed project or growth that may be induced as a result of the ' project, because population growth will likely occur county -wide regardless of where sewers are located. The potential effect of the sewers could be to displace growth from one location to another. Thus, ' to the extent that any county -wide shortfall may be said to exist now or in the future, such a shortfall would need to be dealt with on a county- wide basis. 6.4.3.3 Emergency Services The impact of the proposed sewer project upon emergency services can be gauged according to the number of personnel and vehicles with each ambulance service. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that an active volunteer was the equivalent of an employed emergency services worker CpersonneP). Also for the purposes of this analysis, ' each emergency vehicle was assumed to have been of equal utility in responding to emergencies. i Drvden Ambulance Service ' As described in Section 3.16, the Town of Dryden ambulance service serves the Town of Dryden. The planning standards for emergency medical services (EMS) are 1 EMS vehicle and 4.1 full-time personnel ' (paramedics) per population of 30,000. Based on these standards, Table 46 shows the required number of personnel and vehicles based on the projected population. CTable 46. Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of EMS Vehicles and Personnel for the Town of Dryden. Wig Population 13,532 13,967 14,054 15,328 Existing Required Vehicles 3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 Personnel 4 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 ' *Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000). ' As Table 46 illustrates, the Town of Dryden currently has more than an adequate number of EMS vehicles and personnel to provide DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 ill ' emergency services. The same is true even under Scenario 3, where 0.5 vehicles and 2.1 personnel are required. It is also important to note that first response is provided by the fire departments. Bangs Ambulance Service As described in Section 3.16.3 of this report, Bangs Ambulance service provides emergency medical services to the Town and Village of ' Lansing. The planning standards for emergency medical services (EMS) are 1 EMS vehicle and 4.1 full-time personnel (paramedics) per population of 30,000. Based on these standards, Table 47 shows the required number of EMS personnel and vehicles based on projected population. Table 47. Existing and Projected Population and Existing and Required Number of EMS Vehicles and Personnel for the Town and fVillage of Lansing. MWO Population 13,938 15,705 16,148 17,304 Existing Required Vehicles 10 0.5 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.6 Personnel 19 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000). As demonstrated by Table 47, the number of vehicles and personnel [ available at Bangs Ambulance Service far exceeds the minimum requirements as set by planning standards. The same is true even for Scenario 3 where 0.6 vehicles and 2.4 personnel will be required. Note [� Bangs ambulance services all of Tompkins County, not just the Village of Lansing, and that it appears to have sufficient resources to do so according to adopted planning standards. It is also important to note that first response is provided by the fire departments. 6.4.3.4 Recreation The impact of population increase that may be associated with induced growth can be gauged according to the acreage of parkland that should be accessible to a given population. In this analysis it was assumed that residents living in the DEIS Study Area could readily access ' parks within Tompkins County. The planning standard for a `Community Park' is between five (5) and eight (8) acres per a DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 112 [ J population of 1,000. This analysis assumes the mid -point of the range provided in the planning standard: 6.5 acres for a population of 1,000. Currently, the population of Tompkins County is 96,501, based upon the U.S. Census (2000). The existing park acreage in Tompkins County, derived from the method described in Section 3.16.4, is 9,507.5 '.- acres. According to the planning standard listed above, Tompkins County should have 627.3 acres of `Community Parks' to support its ' current population. Given that the existing park acreage is fifteen (15) times greater than that required by planning standards, it is unlikely that induced growth as a result of the proposed project would impact residents' access to parkland in Tompkins County. 6.4.4 Transportation The population and commercial development projections were provided ' to the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council who incorporated them into the County -wide Tmode12 Travel Demand Model. In addition to these projections, traffic projections from the proposed Kingdom Farm development Draft Environmental Impact Statement were provided for incorporation in the model (note: there is no Final EIS for this project at this time). The_ Tmode12 model is maintained by the Transportation Council to provide an ongoing way of modeling existing and future traffic conditions in Tompkins County. The model is calibrated so that when given intersections and roads become excessively congested; it assumes that drivers will seek other routes in order to find the shortest path to their destination. Modeling was conducted for future growth in the entire DEIS Study Area. C. The traffic impacts from the population and commercial development projections for Scenarios 2 and 3 were compared to those from Scenario P� 1, the base case. The results are found in Appendix 6 and summarized in Table 48. The analysis calculated Levels of Service at 14 stop -sign controlled intersections. The results show some degradation in levels of service at ' several intersections over existing conditions, but very little change between Scenario 1 and Scenarios 2 and 3. In other words, the projections show that degradation will occur whether or not the project is built, and that very little additional degradation is projected to occur in the moderate and high growth scenarios. Because the results of Ithese analyses showed very little impact from the project, additional DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 113 C� analyses were not conducted for signal -controlled intersections. The following are the major observations from the analyses. • There is very little change in traffic volumes at critical intersections throughout the model under all Scenarios. • Only two intersections saw any change in Level of Service as a result of the project. At the intersection of Hanshaw and Highway 13, the westbound and eastbound approaches changed ' from a B to a C level of service. At the intersection of Warren and Hillcrest, the eastbound approach changed from an A to a B level of service. C� There is very little change in the overall link volumes in all three Scenarios. • Significant declines in Level of Service are projected at the intersections of Triphammer and Asbury and Freese and Highway 366; however, these declines are not significantly exacerbated by growth attributable to the project. There are several interpretations for these results. The reason that the L l overall link volumes (a link is a section of roadway between two u intersections) show little change is that the model identifies origins and destinations and then generates trips and assigns them to the ' model road network. The model is designed for the PM peak hour. In general, the dominant trip origins in the PM peak hour are in downtown City of Ithaca and Cornell University, the County's largest employment areas. In the PM, peak trips_ move away from their origins to their destinations. The arterial roads leading out of the PM origins (—� show the greatest increases in traffic. These include: N. Aurora Street, �J N. Cayuga Street, DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 114 Table 48. Summary of Projected Intersection Levels of Service. F�Vtepsect!oa f2l- Hanshaw and Triphammer EB A A A A East Intersection WB A A A A at Community Corners I NB E F F F Hanshaw and Triphammer NB A A A A West Intersection SB A A A A at Community Corners EB B C C C Hanshaw and Freese EB A A A A WB A A A A NB B B B B Hanshaw and Pleasant Grove EB A A A A WB A A A A NB F F F F Hanshaw and Cayuga Heights NB A A A A SB A A A A EB B B B B Triphammer and Asbury NB A A A A . SB A A A A WB C F F F EB C F F F Triphammer and Hilicrest NB A A A A SB A A A A WB B B B B Triphammer and HWY 34 EB A A A A WB B B B B NB C C C C SB A A A A Triphammer and Oakcrest NB A A A A SB A A A A EB B B B B Warren and Asbury EB A A A A WB A A A A NB A A A A Warren Forest Home EB A B B I B WB A A A •A SB A A A A Warren and Hanshaw EB B B B I B WB A B B B NB A B B B SB A B B B Warren and Hilicrest NB A A A I A SB A A A I A EB A A A B Freese and Hwy 366 EB A A A I A WB A A A A NB D F F I F SB C F F F DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 115 Hanshaw Road, East Shore Drive, Triphammer Road and Warren ' Road. These are the principal north south roads leading to the areas in Lansing where most of the growth is projected to occur. The fact that there are multiple roads tends to dilute the impact; traffic is spread out among the possible routes. Ellis Hollow Road also shows some increases as a result of growth in TAZs in that area. The second explanation for the relative absence of significant impacts is that growth in the DEIS Study Area was assigned according to zoning densities and the location of buildable land. Zoning in the DEIS Study Area generally allows relatively low density development, and buildable land is generally located at the edges of existing developed areas. Thus, the projected future patterns of development are reflective of current land use policies in the Study Area communities. A positive effect of these patterns is that, as the traffic analyses show, future traffic impacts will tend to be diluted. A negative impact is that more land is converted from undeveloped to developed use, as discussed in Section 6.4.6 below. Note that the modeling does not purport to claim that there are no traffic problems in the Study Area now or that there will be none in the ' future. A review of the data in Appendix 6 clearly shows that some intersections in the DEIS Study Area are currently operating at a ' Level of Service of F, and will continue to do so in the future absent any improvements. The model does however show that existing intersections that operate at acceptable levels of service will not be significantly degraded by the project and that poorly functioning intersections also will not be significantly degraded by the project. ' Notwithstanding these engineering analyses, it is inevitable that there will be the experience of increased traffic, whether or not the project occurs, and that experience will likely be negative, particularly for those who live along roads that will be subject to more traffic. It is suggested that resolution of existing traffic problems within and outside of the DEIS Study Area will require cooperative problem ' solving on the part of the State, the County. and the affected municipalities. Ell With respect to public transportation services, no significant impacts are anticipated because the volume of growth anticipated by the ' project is relatively small. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 116 6.4.5 Employment The number of jobs to be created by projected commercial development was estimated for each of the three scenarios. Values for employment generation were developed from standard references for the projected retail, office and industrial development in each community. The average employment for each land use (1:300 s.f. for office; 1:600 s.f. for industry and 1:200 s.f. for retail) was multiplied by the amount of that type of commercial development (see Table 33) to obtain job creation). The results are presented in Table 49. Note that these results may seem high because they are based on national standards and, with respect to retail uses, include part-time employment. The use of these projections for the traffic analysis component of this study therefore results in conservative projections. Table 49. Projected Employment Generation Town of Lansing 417 jobs 417 jobs 449 jobs Village of Lansing 2,548 jobs 2,548 jobs 2,548 jobs Town of Dryden 771 jobs 771 jobs 830 jobs f Table 49 illustrates that significant employment is projected to occur under all scenarios, but that the difference between the accelerated [ growth scenarios and the base scenario is relatively small. Such employment is mainly associated with potential future commercial development in the Village of Lansing, which has the highest rate of -_1 job creation. It should be noted, however, that many such jobs are part time in nature. 6.4.6 Land Use Impacts to land use can be assessed by considering the conversion of undeveloped land to developed land. Table 8 categorized and summarized each land use type in the DEIS Study Area. In order to provide context to the discussion that follows, the major land use categories are summarized in Table 50 below. Table 50. Summary of 2002 Major Land Use Classifications in the DEIS Study Area ' •s • mom (Town of Lansing 1146.8 acres 256.2 acres 422.4 acres 3230 acres 2465.4 acres (Village of Lansing 38 acres 272.4 acres 64.9 acres 717.7 acres 812.7 acres Town of Dryden 404.9 acres 535.2 acres 68.7 acres 5009.9 acres 3490.3 acres ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 1 117 C± For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the construction of a dwelling unit in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden would result in the conversion of one acre from undeveloped to developed land, and that the construction of a dwelling unit in the Village of Lansing would result in the conversion of % acre. For commercial properties, it was assumed that each square foot of development would result in the conversion of an additional square foot for parking and circulation. Multiplying these totals by the number of dwelling units in Table 31 and the commercial square footage in Table 32 results in the projected land conversion acreages in Table 51. Table 51. Summary of Projected Land Conversion Acreage By C, Municipality and Scenario I ' Town of Lansing 645 acres 835 acres 1,174 acres Village of Lansing 112 acres 112 acres 201 acres (Town of Dryden 199 acres 235 acres 760 acres Table 52 provides context for the results in Table 51 by presenting the results as a percentage of the total vacant and buildable land in each municipality. That is, it presents the acreage of land projected to be converted in Table 51 as a percentage of the total amount of buildable and vacant buildable land in Table 50. Note that the results are for - lands within the DEIS Study Area only. The percentages would be lower if lands in the municipalities outside of the DEIS Study Area [� were considered. Table 52. Summary of Projected Land Conversion as a } Percentage of Total Buildable and Total Vacant Land ' J / 1 � 1 1 '' 1� ilk � `t 1� 1 i r•,y JI IY1 i'll �.j � I: I Town of Lansing 17.90% 23.90% 23.10% 30.90% 32.50% 43.40% lV llage of Lansing 13.20% 15.60% 13.20% 15.60% 23.60% 23.60%_ I Town of Dryden 5.10% 6.40% 6.00% 7.50% 19.50% 19.50% I One way to place these results in context is to compare them to the amount of land that was .converted to developed status in each ' community over the last ten years. These figures were derived by applying the same formula set forth above, and are given in Table 53. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 118 Note that the projections (which are for a 20-year period) cannot be compared to the previous 20-year period because complete building permit data for Study Area communities is only available for the previous nine years. Also, data concerning historic changes in land use also aren't available. Table 53. Historic Land Conversion 1990-2000 ' Town of Lansing 536.9 acres Village of Lansing 60.3 acres Town of Dryden 297.8 acres Note that the projections in Table 51 differ from the historic data in ' Table 53 because Table 51 is based on census projections and Table 53 is based on actual building permit data; i.e. the use of different sources results in somewhat different conclusions. Comparing Tables 51 and 53 results in the following observations. Note again that the projections are for a 20-year period, while the historic data is for a ten- year -period. ' For ghe Town of Lansing, the Moderate Growth Scenario would • ' result in the conversion of several hundred acres of developed land more than was converted between 1990 and 2000. In the High Growth Scenario more than double the amount of land would be converted as occurred between 1990 and 2000. • For the town of Dryden, the High Growth Scenario would also result in more than double the amount of land conversion as ' occurred between 1990 and 2000. • For the Village of Lansing, the Moderate Growth Scenario would result in more than double the amount of land conversion as occurred between 1990 and 2000, and the High Growth Scenario would result in more than triple the amount. ' While the amount of land projected to be converted may not seem .great in absolute terms, the High Growth Scenario would result . in significantly more land conversion over the projected 20-year period ' than has historically occurred over the last ten years. It should be noted that the amount of land conversion is a function of zoning t densities. Zoning in all three communities allows predominantly the construction of relatively low density residential housing. Such DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 119 housing necessarily involved greater land conversion than the construction of higher density housing. Recognizing that conversion of agricultural land is a major concern, Table 54 presents the results as a percentage of total agricultural land and buildable agricultural land within the Study Area in each municipality. The purpose of this table is to assess the impacts if development were to occur exclusively on agricultural land, an unlikely assumption. See Table 51for the total number of acres projected to be converted over the 20-year study period. Table 54. Surnrnary of Projected Land Conversion as a Percentage of Total- Study Area Agricultural Land Town of Lansing 56.20% 72.80% 100% Village of Lansing 100% 100% 100% Town of Dryden 49.10% 58.10% 100% This table illustrates that to the extent that development in the DEIS Study Area were to favor agricultural lands, as opposed to other vacant lands, significant conversion of such lands could result. However, it is extremely unlikely that all development would occur on such lands. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.11.4, the Study Area contains relatively little of the total active agricultural land within the Towns of Lansing (12,073 acres) and Dryden (9,004 acres). As discussed in Section 3.11.4, relatively little of the total active agricultural land in the Towns of Lansing (7.4%) and Dryden (11.2%) is located within the DEIS Study Area, and both towns contain significant agricultural acreages outside of the Study Area. Nevertheless, to the extent that both communities have expressed a desire to conserve agricultural and open space lands, their conversion to other uses would be an adverse impact. There are a number of mitigation measures available to the communities through their local planning process. Such measures apply to both open space and agricultural land. Such measures could include limiting the scope of uses and densities allowed on agricultural lands and open space lands, providing for the transfer of development rights, and providing for clustered subdivisions. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 120 1 6.4.7 Regional Impacts Regional impacts from this project primarily relate to the potential for population and commercial growth patterns to be altered. For example, commercial development in the City of Ithaca could choose to relocate to the Study Area because increased population density could be perceived as presenting new business opportunities. Such impacts are difficult, if not impossible to quantify, because they depend on a ' myriad of personal and individual business judgments. ' Similarly, persons who may have been considering the purchase of a house in the City of Ithaca or other communities may instead choose to purchase a home within the DEIS Study Area. Note that this impact ' would be minimal with respect to the Town of Lansing Service Area because this area is already largely developed. This impact would relate to any future extension of sewers within the DEIS Study Area. It is reasonable to conclude however that the levels of population growth resulting from the accelerated growth scenarios are not of the ' scale likely to result in significant new commercial development. Commercial development generally follows population growth; the levels of population growth projected in this DEIS are not likely to result in significant relocation of commercial development. ' To the extent that open spaces and farmlands are converted from.open space to developed use, this too represents a regional impact. As illustrated in Table 53 above, the magnitude of this impact could be ' significant if development were to favor agricultural land as opposed to other types of undeveloped land. 'However, on a regional basis, relatively little active farmland is located within the DEIS Study Area, ' so that the overall regional impact would be relatively small. In fact, it can be argued that a positive impact of the project is that it will tend to promote infill development, as opposed to the conversion of ' undeveloped lands, because the area to be serviced with sewers is already partially developed. Additionally, under the High Growth Scenario, significantly more lands would be converted from undeveloped to developed status than ' has historically occurred. Although the fiscal, traffic and community service impacts are relatively small, it is likely that there would be an adverse perception of such growth. As discussed above, this is largely a function of the low density residential zoning favored by local zoning ordinances. ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 121 6.5 Mitigation Potential mitigation measures mentioned in this section of the DEIS are presented for informational purposes in order to help the municipalities in the DEIS Study Area consider whether they should alter their land use regulations and policies. These are decisions for the individual municipalities. It is believed that the suggestions listed in this section will prove useful to the municipalities as they formulate their future land use policies. As an example, based on the results of this analysis, the municipalities could choose to examine their land use policies with respect to the protection of agricultural land, or they could consider zoning policies that favored higher density housing in areas served by infrastructure, and lower density housing elsewhere. The municipalities could also choose to consider growth control mechanisms that would limit the issuance of building permits for new growth that exceeded certain rates. Finally, the municipalities might want to consider embarking on or updating their capital improvements programs so that such improvements are closely tied to future growth. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 0 0.5 ® Builda Zoning Distril Comm 0 Indust :=} _ Lake F Lakesl [� Residential, Low Density Residential, Moderate Density Residential, Mixed -Use ® Rural Agricultural Roads ,s State Highway County Highway — Local Road THE Chap COMPAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. City of I iac 327 T o I t h Town of 222 4 Town f Groton of Lansing qDry Town Town of Carolin own o f n�o"7ij IT, n of Newfief 34 Lj Municipal Boundary i O Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Area shown on large-scale map MITES _ State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Acres of Buildable Land per Zoning District Zoning District Acres Commercial, General and Mixed Use 389.7 Industrial / Research 195.3 Lake Frontage 126.8 Lakeshore 72.3 Residential, Low Density 852.3 Residential, Mixed -Use 629.7 Residential, Moderate Density 1,010.4 Rural Agricultural 383.6 Total 3,660.1 Cre 1t by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect o. July 12, 2002 Figure 46. Town of Lansing Buildable Areas by Zoning District. �k° Various; see maps Figure 46 THE Chazen COMPArTIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants t T n of Lansi 413 34 222 ® Buildable Areas N Zoning District Town if Groton we [ Business and Technology 4 S _ Commercial High Traffic T f U l y s e 1 : 30,000 �0 Commercial Low Traffic 89 Villa a of Lansing 13 Human Health Services District 96 Miles Low Density Residential 13 13 0 0.25 0.5 1 Medium Density Residential Cayuga H h N 79 366 Town of Dryd ;; , High Density Residential City of I a of 0 Research District 327 To l t h a 0 t�j Roads Town of 13 State Highway 79 �' 34 County Highway -- — Local Road \ 6B 13 \11 Town of Carotin Town of :a`D— T wn of Newfiel- 34 I Municipal Boundary Study Area Boundary xz Village of Lansing BLIRDIC%j _® �t I — State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area LALANEW _ OK CW \I Acres of Buildable Land per Zoning District �i p Q 9 Cy�s �� - IN DRIVE CIAO. SHE N1 ,lpys _ - Zoning District Acres O •II-- .. ----J� 41V V.;; m. - .. �NAMI m vG y. owl, ,:'.. Business and Technology 2.6 WALK o _ p��q . Commercial High Traffic 3.0 .N r o G�� D� w000 o Commercial Low Traffic 28.5 F / It., ID� - _1�- � •.: High Density Residential _ 4.0 P �—"� - Human Health Services District 2.5 ` � 4O — I RDOEXT Low Density Residential 702.1 RO1-- Medium Density Residential 261.4 Total 1,004.0 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: I Carol Conolly Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: Ithaca Area Municiaal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street July 12, 2002 Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Figure 47. Village of Lansing Phone: (781) 556-1037 Buildable Areas by Zoning District. various; see maps This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Figure 47 ' ti 1 1 1 1 G f 1 1 1 1 N wE 1s 1 : 65,000 0 2.5 5 10 Miles ® Buildable Areas Zoning District 0 Manufacturing and Assembly ® Adult Uses Low Density Agricultural - Residential 0 Low Density Residential Moderate Density Agricultural - Residential _ Higher Density Agricultural -Commercial -Residential Roads 0State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Gazen COMPAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. I , T n of Lansi 34 4B Town f G222roton T f Uly e Villa �l 89 j a a of Lansing 13 96 �- Village or ayuga Held —its 79 City of 1 -Iaca- 327 T o w i Town of Ith 13 Town of Dry Town of Carolin 1 own of,b— ?wnf Newfiel 34' Lj = State Highway i O Study Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 Municipal Boundary Miles ®� Area shown on large-scale map Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Acres of Buildable Land per Zoning District Zoning District Acres Higher Density Agricultural -Commercial -Residential 66.40 Low Density Agricultural - Residential 942.86 Low Density Residential 3,545.23 Manufacturing and Assembly 141.89 Moderate Density Agricultural - Residential 210.79 Total 4,907.17 C,—d by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conolly Ithaca Area MuniciDal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect o.k. July 12, 2002 Soak: Figure 48. Town of Dryden Buildable Areas by Zoning District. Various; see maps Figure 48 ® Buildable Areas Traffic Analysis Zone 0 9 11 12 �— 13 15 ^16 17 0 18 0 19 20 = 21 22 23 24 0 25 26 0 27 0 28 39 181 Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road Ison LE GRE4 DRIVFi Acres of Buildable Land per Traffic Analysis Zone Traffic Analysis Zone Acres 9 1.3 11 281.0 12 362.4 13 65.9 15 128.6 16 428.6 17 100.2 18 274.7 19 387.5 20 232.8 21 194.5 22 443.7 23 622.2 24 50.3 25 41.4 26 8.6 27 0.2 28 33.7 29 0.01 39 2.4 181 0.03 Total 3,660.1 Go K ToWn of L-ansi to 1.-;&V'.TAK11 Village o . � 79 C iuhts City of I lac ' 327 To . Town o f ".�:� It Town if Groton 1 of Lansing Town of Dry Town of Carolin 13 t �e. ♦ , c,i�►OID 0000:0�!�0 O . r .. ��0 � I 000�..►v., �., '• � ;;i": 00♦ a BOO♦ Municipal Boundary Iliilliiii� -large-scale map +• ... �e�,AAAer ,State Highway _s== <:s M:�, •n k-ta f/N�� w—{ - E s/// 1 : 50,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 0anCHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 GurleyAvenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street COMPA IES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Crested by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol Conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect oere: July 12, 2002 Figure 49. Town of Lansing Buildable Areas �1.: by Transportation Analysis Zones. various; see maps Figure 49 e 1 1 Ir' >o♦000000�p ►�♦�1 o0po♦o♦o♦o♦o�c�l ♦♦� 1 � p♦o0o♦o0o�i�f .., i 1. � ♦♦♦004 1 1 • 1 ���000♦♦OOOd��r ♦.♦iOm♦i�t �� !'�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��INV,♦♦♦O� r0♦♦�\��♦o♦o♦o♦o♦o♦o Ili! ?, _. ®.I 10 °OoA �� �, o�'*♦��oP♦��PoQP♦o♦♦♦♦O�♦�� ♦� li. !�, e • 1jIQ A# ♦♦♦O♦♦♦♦O•►� ' p�►♦�Ii:: • �►oP����♦ XIMNi4 o♦o♦ o♦o♦o♦fib... 1.� � ♦� p- '. •*;: 1�? ►�► i'�c �!1j7��� •jai _n j♦o♦44r," `�,. Pad: �.. o '• '." ^_. • �..-.,_, • _ _ re .�►�,o°o�eoo�P00004 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ie OOOa♦dded:+►p • ���:' , e e e � �♦°J ®'fir � red, s�! )�'�� . ` r• • '�rOoPo♦��i'Pp�O � 0�, � - r ? � •:d its♦♦♦4� '� Ra5n CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New -England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue .21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street PES Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Engineers / Surveyors Phone: (781) 556-1037 Planners Environmental Scientists This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. GIS Consultants The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Td4yn of Lansi f U/ To Town of 3 222 Town f Groton 4B Villa a of Lansing 13 t 13 366 Town of Dryd Ith a 79 14 Town of Carotin :' V o w n o T -n_o IT,n of Newfiel 34 =1 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 ® Study Area Boundary Miles Village of Lansing = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area w«a ay: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area MuniciDal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Figure 50: Village of Lansing Buildable Areas by Transportation Analysis Zone. various; see maps Figure 50 ® Buildable Areas Traffic Analysis Zone 72 73 .3 74 75 76 0 77 78 0 79 J 80 0 91 92 93 ! 94 L J 95 96 [� 97 103 0 104 0 105 106 112 113 j 114 t 115 - 116 Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road TChan HE COMPARES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants Acres of Buildable Land per Traffic Analysis Zone Traffic Analysis Zone Acres 72 107.77 73 70.83 74 15.09 75 156.31 76 68.30 77 332.13 78 215.94 79 72.71 80 5.24 91 31.72 92 12.06 93 106.52 94 127.35 95 74.39 96 231.78 97 146.60 103 388.53 104 1,084.54 105 614.32 106 1,042.41 113 0.72 115 0.81 116 1.08 Total 4,907.17 CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(645) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. T n of Lansi 4B l T f U 1 y�`� / 89 96 Village o ayuga He is 79 City of 1 ac 327 To c Town of r l � 3 2 Tow*nf 22roton 4B �! Villa a of Lansing 13 13 13 366 Town of Dryd 1 t h�a " 79 Town of Caroli.n own of`baINNI In f Newfiel134 Lj - State Highway 0 2 4 8 ® Study Area Boundary Miles Municipal Boundary Y _ Area shown on large-scale map Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area weee ay: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area MuniciDal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Figure 51. Town of Dryden Buildable Areas � by Transportation Analysis Zones. I various; see maps Figure 51 is 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 e' 1'i�d�O �.Qie�►sp� Q�ii'de�0°O°e°e1 .' � � �s � 0.' �i► O e�1 -°�°A'���vee0losd ��' / ' •��pee�; ds se°A�Opo`°0�:: .o. o�.�.- : •� n . e, e4 es e°ee►4O°ewe e �'.� � <•. -...off � `opo�epepe e • �4•'jQs ooav%oe ►eeee4�«a_ '�• �so.l -•_ $+.yam; 84 1 11 1 ;eN�ivi �QOS�►1: 1 1 ® Buildable Areas School Districts Ithaca City School District Lansing Central School District Roads �s State Highway County Highway Local Road THE Chmn COMPA IES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants a�q s oB.-o! je O ►°ee�Ol�°ep4 ►Ao•,►ee• 000004 ►oo►•oe• ;��o oe6e9 �OsO-@ °A O ♦ e`�i �-C °�O �e°s-eke A 1 se��e Vie: Leo►p�0egemeo4t` :1 ' I ►°oep°1�L':( meeeeo . �d`e4 <<j ►:: m'-'K "a - o ;a►°sue - UZI >, ..•., a �©e-e-ems ►, , / �. _ - se. -:. ��I+p1 ..��:�.�. o�e�o '►o°poi/i . v �- eopooeeem-f: ►�y�.;:e.,.•':�•�•- s♦ °.eos♦ A f Q f!°G r : Y '.+� OIOeO Qee+9 .-. ►.. ���A°0 �� �i_o_�_ _ arm,:; se�•.o o,/. ► �� 0`0♦1 e� fDa...,e ehi�ae� ;e. s�►��ep/ Al ®� �� o�l�000so,�ooe/a a �d o+p�p=e�� ►i os tie ..,_©-�.-vim ' -••..�.I: e�10 eA`� �e°w': �'I Pey�_A8,1 _fir>;i' • ��et�i°Q°e°eoeo��p�~',P��►®i;>p•;���oss'O-o`��I':r _• • ;�pov►ooeoo•o• ►_es•�_-e-r,;°�oeo�a,- - ►Io4o°A4o•e�mop4►opt• =�ios '-• `) ► O �O ewe 0 � - - a►a;:,_^i ;.._ _......_ses.. it e ► w 6e e CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Town of I Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 8 Study Area Boundary Mlles M,Area shown on large-scale map State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Acres of Buildable Land by School District in the Town of Lansing Portion of the Study Area School District Acres Ithaca City School District 209.2 Lansing Central•School District 3,450.9 Total 3,660.1 crcac.a ny: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect July 12, 2002 Figure 52. Town of Lansing Buildable Areas � by School Districts. Various; see maps Figure 52 THE Chazen COMPAPTIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants ® Buildable Areas School Districts Ithaca City School District Lansing Central School District Roads 13 State Highway County Highway Local Road /ANC w� pE 8 1 : 30,000 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 p ' U'. y 4 ` µ WALK" O `: Q = . O pry . " - - ��90' -_ - o. p,Gwooa A- F ® BR RDOEWxNT�__ ti�00 AM 'RD ", 0 �} .m CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. I T n of Lansi 34 222 \ 4B Town 1f Groton TL010111" f U'1 of Lansing .� 79\y%� )366( j,� T o w n of D r y sz( r� �To��f-'kf I th Town of ate . ` Town of Carolin own of zi!q T wn of Newfiel N 1 A2r/ =1 Municipal Boundary 0 2 4 �8 i 0 Study Area Boundary Miles I Village of Lansing = State Highway Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Acres of Buildable Land per School District School District Acres Ithaca City School District 739.01 Lansing Central School District 265.00 1,004.02 a.,eea ey: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect o.«: July 12, 2002 Figure 53. Village of Lansing Buildable Areas by School District. various; see maps Figure 53 N yy� E s// 1 : 65,000 Miles 0 0.5 1 ® Buildable Areas School Districts Dryden Central School District ~� Ithaca City School District 0 Lansing Central School District Roads GState Highway County Highway Local Road THE Cban COMPAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone: (781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. i i 1 I T n of Lansi \ 4B , 1 T f Uly / 96 ; Village o, ayuga Heic-7tsi 79 — kCiof 1 ,ac TcTown iee 222 3 Town f Groton Villa a of Lansing 13 13 13 366 - Town of Dryd \ t h�a 79 -cB Town of Carolin 1 own of` -nA"' IT,n of Newfie 34 Li - State Highway OStudy Area Boundary 0 2 4 8 � Municipal Boundary Miles ED Area shown on large-scale map Index map of Tompkins County, NY showing the study area Acres of Buildable Land per School District School District Acres Dryden Central School District 1,158.16 Ithaca City School District 3,737.36 Lansing Central School District 11.01 Total 4,906.52 C—tl by: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Carol conolly Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Project July 12, 2002 Figure 54. Town of Dryden Buildable Areas by School Districts. Various; see maps Figure 54 122 i 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified. Ell • The project will result in unavoidable habitat loss along construction rights - of -way and at pump station locations. Such loss will occur in Unique Natural Areas. However, no areas of significant habitat will be affected by the project. • The project will result in the disruption of traffic patterns during the P J P construction period. • The ro'ect will result in noise from blasting during construction. project g g �j The project will result in dust and odors during construction. • The project may result in erosion and sedimentation during construction. • The project may have impacts to cultural resources, if any such resources are identified during the Stage 1B study. • The project may induce growth in the DEIS Study Area. To the extent that such growth occurs as a result of the project,, there will be an increase in t people and associated impacts to school systems, transportation systems and' community facilities and services. To the extent that there may be a county- wide shortfall in public safety protection, such shortfall may be exacerbated. However, as noted in Section 6.4.3.2, to the extent that such a shortfall may be 'said to exist, this is a county -wide issue and not one attributable to this i Fi project. • Under the High Growth Scenario, conversion of undeveloped land to developed land would occur at rates higher than in the past, resulting in potentially negative impacts to community character. 1 DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 123 ' 8.0 ALTERNATIVES ' The following discussion is taken from Chapter 4 of the Unified Engineering Report Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Improvements Ithaca, Cayuga Heights, Dryden and Lansing, New York prepared by Stearns & Wheler, L- LLC, dated August 1999. This document sets forth the full range of alternatives considered during the planning period for this project. 8.1 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives During the initial planning phases of the project several wastewater disposal concepts and design alternatives were - considered, including town -wide collection and treatment, regional treatment from neighboring facilities, localized sub -area treatment, and collection using smaller diameter sewers. ' The alternatives were developed with consideration of the characteristics and needs of the service area, wastewater treatment goals and projected ' wastewater flows and loadings. Note that all of the alternatives focused on the Town of Lansing as this is the area where the need for sewers is most pressing. Alternative discharge points were necessarily considered as part of this screening process. For example, alternatives involving an alternative wastewater treatment plant or process also involve an alternative discharge point. The following alternatives were evaluated. 8.1.1.Wastewater Collection System Alternatives Alternative systems of wastewater collection such as the use of vacuum sewers for the entire Service Area were considered. This alternative was rejected because the majority of the Service Area has slopes [� suitable for the use of gravity sewers and because the operation and maintenance costs of vacuum sewers is higher than for gravity sewers. However, vacuum sewers are proposed in a few parts of the Service [ Area where gravity flows are not feasible. No particular environmental benefits or impacts have been identified with respect to the use of ' vacuum sewers as opposed to gravity sewers, except as discussed in Section 8.4.2 below. Small -diameter variable slope sewers (SDVS) were also considered. ` These sewers have the advantage of lower construction costs. However, they require the use of full-size septic tanks and are more expensive ' than gravity sewers. For these reasons,_ this alternative was also rejected. No particular environmental benefits or impacts have been identified with respect to this alternative. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 124 8.1.2 Wastewater Treatment in Localized Subareas The construction of small package plants or neighborhood subsurface areas was considered but determined not to be appropriate for the objectives of the Town of Lansing as articulated in the wastewater r facilities report. From an environmental point of view, this alternative would result in a greater. number of facilities and discharges requiring proper operation, with a resultant higher risk of malfunction and environmental pollution. Furthermore, a larger plant is likely to incorporate a higher degree of wastewater treatment, resulting in a higher quality of treated waste discharge, particularly with respect to phosphorus removal. 8.1.3 Wastewater Discharge Alternatives Alternative wastewater discharge locations such as sub -surface ' discharge or land application were not considered feasible by project engineers because of the amount of land that would be required, because of potentially significant operational difficulties (e.g. land ' application during extended periods of heavy rain or snow), and because of the significant infrastructure required to pump treated wastewater from the IAWWTP to the discharge location. 8.1.4 Conventional Local Wastewater Treatment This alternative would involve the construction of a Town -owned treatment plant. This alternative was rejected because it would not provide for a regional wastewater solution, a major goal of the [ NYSDEC in its review of this project. From an environmental point of view, this alternative would result in another treatment plant requiring proper operation, with a resultant higher risk of malfunction C! and environmental pollution. 8.1.5 Regional Wastewater Treatment Solution The development of a regional wastewater treatment solution was the preferred alternative. Four regional alternatives were evaluated, as follows. ' 8.1.6 Reduced Service Area Almost any reduction in the Town of Lansing Service Area is theoretically possible. However, a reduced service area would not meet DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 . 125 ' the sewage treatment needs of the Town of Lansing as presented in this EIS. A reduced service area would result in lower flows, and i therefore less discharge. However, the premise of this project is that the continued environmental impacts associated with in -ground systems in the Town of Lansing Service Area are greater than those ' associated with an increase in discharge of treated sewage to Cayuga Lake. ' 8.2 Detailed Regional Alternatives Considered 8.2.1 Treatment at the VCHWTP Treatment at the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant was considered but rejected because, although it is technically [' feasible to expand this plant to meet all of the projected flows within the Planning Area, it is not as cost-effective to do so. The cost of this alternative is estimated at $14.7 million dollars. Recognition of this u fact led to consideration of the partial diversion alternative. This alternative has no environmental benefits or drawbacks compared to the preferred alternative. 8.2.2 Cayuga Heights Partial Diversion This alternative includes the conveyance of sewage from the Town of Lansing Service Area and the Village of Lansing to the VCHWTP. To offset additional flow from the Town of Lansing Service Area and to reduce monthly average and peak hourly sewage flows to within current design capacities, partial diversion of raw sewage flow from areas now served by the VCHWTP to the IAWWTP is provided. This is the preferred alternative that is the subject of this DEIS. 8.2.3 Cayuga Heights Complete Diversion ' This alternative includes decommissioning of the VCHWTP. Sewage from the existing Cayuga Heights service area as well as from the proposed Town of Lansing Service Area would be conveyed to an expanded IAWWTP. This alternative would have the environmental benefit of reducing the number of wastewater treatment plants requiring proper operation. However, this alternative was rejected because it was more costly than the Partial Diversion Alternative. 1� DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 126 8.2.4 Cayuga Heights Primary Treatment ' This alternative includes continued use of the VCHWTP as a primary treatment facility for sewage flows from the existing Cayuga Heights Service Area as well as the proposed Service Area. Primary treated wastewater effluent would be discharged to the IAWWTP for further treatment and subsequent discharge to Cayuga Lake. This alternative was rejected because it is more costly_ than the partial diversion ' alternative. This alternative has no environmental benefits or drawbacks compared to the preferred alternative. 1 8.3 Alternative Pipe Sizing The proposed transmission main is the minimum size necessary to meet the project needs. The recognized design standard utilized for sizing sewerage facilities is the Great Lakes -Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers (commonly referred to as the Ten State Standards). The standard established minimum slopes and roughness coefficients for varying pipe diameters. The, gravity transmission main connecting the South Lansing collector sewers to the Village of Cayuga Heights Treatment Plant will follow a route with sections of potentially very flat slope. In addition to adequately conveying the peak hourly flow rate of 1.45 MGD from the Town of Lansing Planning Area, the pipe diameters selected reflect possible pipe slopes as low as 0.0008 feet/feet (0.08%). Further, as the primary conveyance system for the Town of Lansing a smaller diameter gravity transmission main could not efficiently be replaced or supplemented in the future without significant cost and duplicated construction impacts. 8.4 Alternative Transmission Line Routing The gravity transmission main connecting the South Lansing collector sewers to the Village of Cayuga Heights Treatment Plant will be routed through two Unique Natural Areas, Esty's Glen (UNA 90) and McKinney's Twin Glens (UNA 103). Conventional construction of the main will permanently disturb the vegetation that has been re-established on and along the former railroad grade. A pipe bridge crossing Twin Glens will span approximately 100 feet and introduces an additional man-made feature to the glen. An alternative pipe route along existing roadways and utilizing existing sewer main easements would avoid all disruption to the referenced UNA's. Modifications to the current schematic design for the gravity transmission system include the following: DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 127 • Add two sewage pump stations between Burdick Hill Road and Cedar Lane. • Utilize the Cayuga Heights Road right-of-way for routing 10-inch force main and 21-inch gravity main. • Replace the existing sewer main on Cedar Lane with 24-inch gravity main. `- A preliminary estimate of construction cost for the two transmission main alternatives suggests that the additional cost of the force main alternative is ' roughly $225,000. An annual expense to operate and maintain the two pump stations is estimated at $50,000. In addition to the increased capital and operating expense the force main alternative will require that the Village of Lansing construct and maintain pump stations and force main systems on Cayuga'Hills Road, Pembroke Lane and Twin'Glens Road should sewer service E ever be extended to residences on these roads. A decision whether to pursue this alternative will be made in conjunction with ' this EIS process, either through Findings Statements or subsequent to the adoption of the Findings Statements. 8.5 The No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, none of the benefits associated with the ' project described in Section 1 would be realized. Growth related impacts are anticipated to occur as outlined in Scenario 1 in the discussion in Section 6. ' The No Action Alternative was rejected because it does not meet the communities' wastewater management needs, as addressed in the numerous planning and engineering documents developed for this project. The No -Action Alternative would result in ongoing environmental impacts associated with l existing sanitary. waste disposal systems as well as for potential future in - ground systems. DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 128 1 9.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS ' During the construction phase, irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are associated with the use of construction supplies and materials and the use of ' fuel and energy. Once operational, such commitments are associated with the use of energy and the ' permanent commitment of sewage treatment capacity. To the extent that growth may occur as a result of the project, a variety of ' irretrievable and irreversible resource commitments could occur, including the conversion of land to developed use and the use of construction supplies and ' materials and fuel and energy. 1 j' L. 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 ' DEC Submittal Draft 8/2 02 APPENDIX 1 I DRAFT JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. Termination of Prior Contracts and Joint Sewer Agreement 2. Definitions and Agreement Structure 3. Governance of the Joint Service 4. Service Area 5. Capacity 6. Financing of Operation and Maintenance Costs 7. Financing Capital Projects 8. Financing of Jointly Owned Interceptors 9. Treatment Facility Personnel 10. Treatment Facilities Operation . 11. Industrial Pretreatment Program(s) 12. Title to Property 13. Tax Exemption 14. Bonding, Auditing and Accounting 15. Responsibility for Damages and Claims 16. Duration 17. Consent and Notification of Parties and Board 18. Designation of Agent Municipality 19. Enforcement of Agreement and Damages 20. Further Documents 21. Illegality of Part 22. Entire Agreement and Amendments 23. Governing Law 24. Authorization to Enter Agreement 25. Assignments and Transfers 26. New Owners July 31, 2002 DRAFT PAGE 2 2 5 8 9 12 14 16. 18 19 20 21 22 22- 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 JULY 319 2002 DRAFT DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE BEFORE RELEASE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 2002, by and between the VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS, Tompkins County, New York, TOWN OF DRYDEN, Tompkins County, New York, CITY OF ITHACA, Tompkins County, New York, the TOWN OF ITHACA, Tompkins County, New York, TOWN OF LANSING, Tompkins County, New York, and VILLAGE OF LANSING, Tompkins County, New York (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the Village of Cayuga Heights constructed, owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility located in the Village of Cayuga Heights which services its residents as well as certain residents in the Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the residents outside the Village of Cayuga Heights receive wastewater treatment services pursuant to contracts between the Village of Cayuga Heights and their respective municipalities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 5-G of the N.Y. General Municipal Law, the Town of Dryden, City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca jointly constructed, own and operate a wastewater treatment facility located in the City of Ithaca and entered into a Joint Sewer Agreement, dated December 22, 1981, and amended on April 11, 1984, for the joint provision of wastewater treatment services for certain areas in their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the respective legislative bodies of the Parties have determined that joint ownership and operation of the two wastewater treatment facilities by all six municipalities is in their best interests and will benefit their respective citizens and the environment, and have authorized their respective Mayors and Supervisors to sign this Agreement; 1 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree as follows. 1. Termination of Prior Contracts and Joint Sewer Agreement ' 1.1 The following contracts for wastewater treatment service are terminated as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. These contracts are between: the Village of Cayuga Heights -; and Town of Dryden, dated ; the Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Ithaca, dated , the Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Lansing, dated and the Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Lansing, dated ' 1.2 The Joint Sewer Agreementamong the Town of Dryden, City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca is terminated as of the Effective Date of this Agreement by a separate agreement of same date. 1 2. Definitions and Agreement Structure `- 2.1 These words and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. Agreement. The Joint Sewer Agreement For Wastewater Treatment Facilities ' Located in the Village of Cayuga Heights and the City of Ithaca. ' B. Board. The intermunicipal body, which is also known as , that is charged with management of the Treatment Facilities pursuant to this Agreement. C. Capacity. The capacity of each Treatment Facility shall be its Permitted Capacity. The capacity each Party owns in the Treatment Facilities (each Party's allocation of Permitted Capacity) as of the Effective Date of this Agreement is set forth in Exhibit A. 2 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT D. Cubic Feet. A volume or consumption measurement based on the volume of water contained in one cubic foot, equivalent to 7.481 gallons. E. Effective Date of this Agreement. The date on which this Agreement is fully executed by all of the Parties. F. Excess Capacity. A Party shall be deemed to have excess capacity if its allocation of Permitted Capacity exceeds One Hundred Ten percent of its maximum monthly average flow over the previous five (5) years (or since it began using one of the Treatment Facilities, if it has not used a Treatment Facility for at least five years). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party shall be deemed to have excess capacity if its maximum monthly average flow over the previous five-year or other relevant period is within Two Hundred Thousand (200,000) gallons of its allocation of Permitted Capacity. G. Flow Meter. A device that measures the flow rate and volume of sanitary sewage and provides a record of the flow data on a continuous basis. H. Gallons. A volume or consumption, measurement based on a standard U.S. gallon, equivalent to 0.134 cubic feet or 3.785 liters. I. MGD. Million gallons per day. A unit of flow measurement equivalent to 1.547 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 694.4 gallons per minute (gpm). , J. New Owner. A municipality that is not a Party as of the Effective Date of this Agreement but thereafter becomes an owner of the Treatment Facilities pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. K. O&M. Operation and maintenance. 3 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 1 L. party and Parties. "Party" means one of the Parties. "Parties" means the six C� municipalities who are signing this Agreement, collectively. "Party" shall always refer to a - ; municipality, not the Board or a municipality's representatives to the Board. M. Permitted Capacity. The maximum combined 30-day average flows that the ' Parties' SPDES. Permits allow the Treatment Facilities to accept. Exhibit A shows each Treatment Facility's Permitted Capacity as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. N. Service Area. Those areas within the Parties' jurisdictions that are delineated as such on the map annexed to this Agreement as Exhibit B. ' O. SPDES Permits. The State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued to the Treatment Facilities' owners by the New York State Department of Environmental j Conservation. P. Treatment Facilities. The wastewater treatment plants located in the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca, together with jointly owned interceptors used by all the Parties and related jointly used equipment and facilities, regardless of where such are located. "Treatment Facility" shall refer to either of these wastewater treatment plants, together with the jointly owned interceptors used by all the Parties and serving that plant, and related jointly used equipment and facilities. 2.2 Among other things, this Agreement describes the methods to allocate among the ' Parties the various expenses associated with the provision of sewer services. The following sections contain the allocation methodologies for these expenses: Section 5: Capacity purchases at Treatment Facilities Section 6: O&M costs for Treatment Facilities Section 7: Capital costs for Treatment Facilities ' Section 8: Jointly owned interceptor capital and O&M costs. 4 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT G J 3. Governance of the Joint Service 3.1 The management of the Treatment Facilities shall be governed by the Board, which shall consist of two members appointed from each Party by resolution of its governing body. At least one member from each Party shall be from the governing body of the appointing Party. Staff of the respective Parties shall not be eligible to serve on the Board and may not be ' appointed to serve by any Party. The members of the Board shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party. E i 3.2 If the Parties amend this Agreement to add New Owners, the membership of the Board shall thereafter increase by two for each New Owner, and each New Owner shall appoint two members to the Board in accordance with the provisions regarding members specified above. 3.3 The Board shall elect its own chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary. The ' Board shall also elect a treasurer, who must also be the chief fiscal officer of one of the Parties but need not be a Board member. The Board shall determine the terms of office for the officers and the procedure for removal of officers. 3.4 The Board shall fix a time and place for regular meetings. In addition, the chairperson or any two members of the Board may call a special meeting of the Board. 3.5 In the conduct of business for the Board, a quorum shall consist of a majority of ' the members then appointed and serving. Except as otherwise provided herein, by law, or by regulation of the Board, the votes of a majority of the full possible strength of the members shall be necessary for any affirmative action of the Board. ' 3.6 All members and officers of the Board shall serve without compensation from the Board, but the Board may reimburse them for actual reasonable expenses incurred in the 5 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT discharge of their duties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the treasurer may be reimbursed for work involved with the payment of checks and preparation of financial statements. 3.7 The Board, insofar as is permitted by law, shall be responsible for and supervise the construction, operation, maintenance, and management of the Treatment Facilities. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Board may rely on and delegate duties to staff as appropriate and shall have the following authority, power and duties: A. Prepare the annual budget and make requests to the Parties on or before August 1 of each year. Each budget request shall include projected income and operational and capital expenses for the next fiscal year, as well as proposed balances for the operational fund, capital project fimd(s), and any other fund maintained by the Board. Each budget request shall also include a five-year capital project budget with proposed income, capital expenditures and capital project fund(s) balances projected for the next five years. Each operational expense projection shall include an employee roster and salary schedule for employees who provide services to the Treatment Facilities or Board. Each Party must approve the budget before it becomes effective. If the Parties do not approve a budget, the Board shall operate under the previous year's budget until a new budget is approved. B. Develop a master plan for at least the next five (5) years, and review and update I the plan on an annual basis. ' C. Establish and review annually the administrative procedures for administration of the Agreement, including collection of the necessary information for the preparation, issuance and collection of bills to the Parties and other entities. ID. Discuss and negotiate any matters of mutual interest in relation to this Agreement. ' E. Review this Agreement on an annual basis, and make recommendations as necessary to the Parties regarding this Agreement and matters that arise hereunder. 6 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT F. Administer the excess capacity set -aside as set forth in Section 5 below. - G. Monitor master flow meters and master water meters. ' H. Compile and maintain records regarding the Treatment Facilities and make all necessary and required reports to regulatory agencies. L I. Administer, implement and enforce the Industrial Pretreatment Program(s) as specified by the Parties through their respective laws, ordinances or otherwise, and as specified L through the Treatment Facilities' Enforcement Response Plan(s) and other documents issued or approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Board's powers and duties regarding the Industrial Pretreatment Program(s) are further described in Section 11 below. ? , 7. Submit periodic and annual reports to the Parties. !. J K. Negotiate agreements with third parties for matters related to the Treatment Facilities, including agreements for engineering and construction services, and recommend that the Parties or their authorized representatives sign the agreements. I L. Make capital improvements to the Treatment Facilities and, to the extent permitted by law, establish capital project funds to fund such improvements. M. Adopt policies for the Board's authorization of expenditures for the acquisition of } supplies, equipment, materials and labor necessary to operate, maintain and construct F1 PP � �� �'y p , improvements to the Treatment Facilities. N. Upon agreement of the Parties as to reimbursement of costs, provide services for Dany one or more of the .Parties, such as maintenance of sewer lines owned solely by one Party, meter readings, and other services. 7 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT O. Notify the governing bodies of the Parties of any claims, demands, disputes, differences, controversies and misunderstandings that cannot be resolved by negotiation. IP. Hold public hearings from time to time as necessary. IQ. Review the Operating and Maintenance Manual(s) as needed. R. Apply on behalf of the Board, and assist the Parties in applying, to the appropriate governmental and non -governmental authorities, including the United States Government and the government of New York State, for such financial and other aid (including loans or grants) that may be available for any projects relating to the Treatment Facilities. ' S. Review a monthly financial report of closed books and audit the vouchers for payment, all of which the treasurer shall be responsible for submitting to the Board in a timely fashion. 1 T. Exercise such other powers as the Parties may deem appropriate. U. Adopt and revise, subject to the approval of the Parties' governing bodies, rules and regulations to implement any of the foregoing powers and duties, and provide for the enforcement of its rules and regulations. 1 a Service Area 4.1 The Parties will operate and maintain the Treatment Facilities, and construct additional facilities as necessary, to provide appropriate treatment of wastewater from the Service Area depicted on the map that is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 4.2 A Party may extend service into any portion of the Service Area upon written notification to the other Parties. No approval by the Board or other Parties shall be necessary for such extensions. Any Parry extending service must assure, before the service is extended, that 8 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT adequate transmission capacity for the increased flows exists or is obtained pursuant to Section 8. 4.3 Service to areas outside the Service Area (shown on Exhibit B) will be provided only upon the written recommendation of the Board and the written consent of all of the Parties. 4.4 Unless it receives the written consent of the other Parties, no Party shall own or construct any new wastewater treatment system to serve the Service Areas, nor shall any Party ' divert flows from the Treatment Facilities to any other wastewater collection and treatment system, during the original term and any renewal terms of this Agreement. 4.5 Any Party that violates any of the provisions of this Section 4 shall be subject to liquidated damages of three hundred dollars ($300) per day for each day that a violation exists, with such damages distributed to the non -violating Parties on a proportionate basis. Each non - violating Party's share shall be in the same proportion as that Party's responsibility for the Treatment Facilities' O&M costs (calculated without the violating Party's responsibility) for the calendar year in which payment on such claim is made. The amount of liquidated damages per day shall increase on an annual basis by the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Northeast Urban Size B/C Region published by the U.S. Department of Labor. 4.6 Any Party may apply to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Tompkins County, New York, to enjoin any unauthorized extension and/or provision of service or sewer line or other prohibited action, and/or to recover liquidated damages as set forth above, and for any other relief the court deems appropriate. 5. Canacity 5.1 As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Treatment Facilities' Permitted Capacity and excess capacity will be allocated among the Parties as set forth in Exhibit A. The Board shall keep track of purchases and sales of capacity after the Effective Date of this Agreement. As the Parties do not intend to amend Exhibit A each time there is a purchase and 9 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT sale of capacity, they agree that the Board's figures shall be the official record of each Party's allocation of Permitted Capacity and excess capacity and shall supercede Exhibit A once there has been a purchase and sale of capacity. At a minimum, the Board shall review each Party's usage of capacity and the amount of each Party's excess capacity each year as part of the budget process for the joint operation and agree on a new Exhibit A. 5.2 A Party shall be deemed to need additional capacity if its allocation of Permitted Capacity is less than One Hundred Ten percent (110%) of its maximum monthly average flow over the previous five (5) years (or since it began using one of the Treatment Facilities, if it has not used a Treatment Facility for at least five years). Each Party shall determine its maximum monthly average flow by using data from master flow meters maintained by the Board and, if necessary, information from other appropriate system monitoring.. The Board shall ensure that flow meter readings are updated by June 1 of each year as budgets are being prepared for the joint operation. At a minimum, flow meters shall be placed, where feasible and practical, on the Parties' trunk lines and diversion mains where they enter the City of Ithaca's system. Exhibit C shows the methodology and location of the flow meters the Parties will use as of the Agreement's Effective Date to determine maximum monthly average flows. The Parties anticipate the methodology and flow meter locations may change as technology changes and as collection system owners reduce infiltration and inflow, which will reduce peak flows to the Treatment Facilities. As methodologies, flow meter locations and infiltration/inflow contributions change, the Parties' excess capacity allocations will change and will be reflected in the Board's records and Exhibit A. The Board shall review. the methodology and flow meter locations for determining maximum monthly average flows at a minimum on an annual basis as part of the budget process for the joint operation and shall agree on a new Exhibit Cif the methodology or flow meter locations need to be changed. 5.3 Before beginning to discharge into a Treatment Facility for the first time, New Owners must purchase adequate capacity from the then -existing Parties. 10 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 5.4 A Party that needs additional capacity, and a New Owner that needs to make its initial purchase of capacity, may purchase it from Parties that have Excess Capacity if the purchasing Party and selling Party or Parties can reach agreement on the price for the capacity. 5.5 A Party that does not need additional capacity may nonetheless purchase it from other Parties if the selling Parties have excess capacity and are willing to sell it to the purchasing Party at an agreed -upon price. All Parties with excess capacity have the right to participate in the sale but are not obligated to do so. Each participating Party shall sell the purchasing Party a proportion of the requested capacity, which proportion shall be equal to that Party's excess capacity divided by the total excess capacity of all of the participating selling Parties. 5.6 Excess capacity shall be purchased and sold in blocks of any size. 5.7 A Party requesting the purchase of capacity shall submit its request in writing to the Board. The Board shall notify the Parties' respective municipal clerks of the pending request within ten (10) business days of receipt of the request. Before the purchase of capacity by a Party that needs additional capacity or by a New Owner that wants to begin discharging into the Treatment Facilities for the first time, the purchasing Party shall submit to the Board an engineering report and Tompkins County Health Department approval, where Health Department approval is necessary, that demonstrate to the Board's satisfaction that the purchasing Party is buying enough capacity for its projected needs. 5.8 The Party purchasing the capacity shall pay each Party selling the capacity a lump sum payment equaling the value of the capacity provided by that Party, which shall be calculated by using the purchase price voluntarily agreed upon. The purchasing Party shall make the payments before using any of the capacity it is purchasing. 5.9 Parties purchasing capacity shall also pay for the pro-rata value of any interceptors that will convey the new flows and that will be jointly used with another Party or Parties as specified in Section 8 below. 11 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 5.10 Wherever the term "present value" is referred to throughout this Agreement, it shall be calculated by using the Engineering News Record Index that is in effect as of the time of payment., 5.11 Unless the Parties unanimously agree otherwise, and subject to paragraph 7.5 below, the Parties shall expand the capacity of either Treatment Facility when the Board projects that ninety percent (90%) of Permitted Capacity will be used by the end of a three-year period. Once this threshold is actually reached, no capacity sales or extension of sewer lines shall take place until the Permitted Capacity is expanded or modified to accommodate the additional flows. The Board may also recommend, and the Parties may agree, to prohibit increases in flows from users to the Treatment Facilities until Permitted Capacity is expanded or modified to accommodate the increased flows. 5.12 If anPart uses more than its allocation of capacity, any Party may seek relief in Y Y P the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Tompkins County, New York, to enjoin such use and/or to compel the purchase of additional capacity. 6. Financing of Operation and Maintenance Costs 6.1 The annual budget developed by the Board shall include a recommended budget for the operation and maintenance of the Treatment Facilities. Once the overall budget is approved by the Parties, the Board shall determine the O&M rate, which shall equal the cost to 1 operate and maintain the Treatment Facilities, divided by the Parties' total water consumption in the Service Area (which shall be measured by water service meter readings). The O&M rate shall reflect all O&M costs to operate and maintain the Treatment Facilities. Such costs include, but are not limited to, costs to manage, repair and maintain the Treatment Facilities; insurance; salaries and required overhead on personnel; legal, engineering, bookkeeping and auditing expenses; utility costs; fuel; supplies; parts and materials; SPDES Permit fees; costs of monitoring Cayuga Lake required by the SPDES Permits or regulatory agencies; and the operating costs of the Industrial Pretreatment Program(s). 12 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 6.2 The Board shall utilize master water service meter readings and, if necessary, information from other appropriate monitoring to ascertain the total amounts of water used by each Party for facilities connected to the sanitary sewer system in the Service Area during the latest twelve (12) month period for which figures are available preceding August 1 of each year. 6.3 The Board shall allocate the O&M costs for the next fiscal year among the Parties by multiplying the applicable O&M rate by the amount of water each Party used for facilities connected to the sanitary sewer system in the Service Area during said preceding twelve (12) month period. Parties that incur Treatment Facilities' expenses that have been previously approved by the Board and that are included in the O&M rate shall receive credits for such expenses if the Parties have not previously been reimbursed for them. 6.4 The Board shall bill the Parties quarterly for O&M costs. The Parties shall pay their respective bills for O&M costs on their quarterly due dates. 6.5 Before new flows are sent to a Treatment Facility by a Party that is extending service or is about to begin use of a Treatment Facility for the first time, the Party shall pay the Board a payment equal to that Party's share of the O&M costs for the quarter in which that Party ' begins using the Treatment Facility, pro -rated from the date the Party will begin sending the new flows until the first date included on the next quarterly bill from the Board. 6.6 Payments of the O&M rate shall be placed into a separate fund dedicated to O&M ' costs only that is maintained by the Board. 6.7 All O&M expenses shall be paid from the O&M fund. The Board shall determine annually the optimal fund balance, which shall be a fixed percentage of the O&M budget. If the fund balance rises above the optimal number, the Board may apply the excess to reduce the next year's O&M budget, or, upon unanimous consent, may reduce the fund balance. The amount of ithe reduction may be distributed to the Parties in proportion to their payments into the O&M fund during the preceding fiscal year. 13 LJ, _ JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 6.8 The Board shall determine annually the minimum fund balance, which shall be a fixed percentage of the O&M budget. If the unallocated fund balance falls below the minimum number, the deficit shall be paid by the Parties in proportion to their payments into the O&M i! fund during the preceding fiscal year, and the O&M rate shall be increased the next budget year to make up the deficit. 6.9 [Fund balance provision to be added.] 6.10 Before each New Owner becomes an owner, or for other compelling reasons, the operational fund balance or a portion thereof may be distributed, upon unanimous consent of the existing owners, to the existing owners in proportion to their payments into the fund. Each Party shall thereafter pay into the operational fund amounts proportionate to their water usage for facilities connected to the sanitary sewer system in the Service Area during the preceding fiscal year. 6.11 Each Party shall have the option of raising the funds to pay its O&M bills by charging its users sewer rents, or making assessments, or by any other means permitted by law. Nothing herein shall prevent the Parties from raising, in addition to the funds to pay their O&M j bills, additional amounts to amortize their respective capital costs or to pay for the maintenance of their individual systems. F' 6.12 If a Party fails to pay an O&M bill when due, the other Parties shall have the right j to compel payment of same by application to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Tompkins County, New York. 7. Financine Capital Protects 7.1 This section deals with the financing of all capital projects except those regarding jointly owned interceptors, which are dealt with in Section 8 below. � 14 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 7.2 The Board shall maintain one or more capital project funds for specific projects, and a budget shall be attached to each project. The Parties shall pay into such funds based on their proportionate ownership interest of the Permitted Capacity. The establishment of such funds and the making of capital improvements, unless otherwise expressly provided for in- this Agreement, shall be subject to the approval and authorization of all the Parties and the approval of any federal or state agencies as may be required. The Parties' approval and authorization for any capital improvement may be granted at the same time as the establishment of any capital project funds for any such improvement. 7.3 The capital project funds) maintained by the Board may be used for all approved Treatment Facility capital expenditures, including payment of debt service incurred after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the capital project fund(s) may not be used for projects where the primary purpose of the project is plant expansion. The capital project fund(s) may be used for treatment improvements that result in incidental capacity expansion. 7.4 The Board shall annually determine the optimal fund balances and review the proposed capital projects as part of the annual budget process, taking into account capital needs identified in the five-year master plan. For expenditures necessitated by an unforeseen natural or manmade disaster, the Parties shall apportion emergency expenses among themselves based on their proportionate ownership interest of the Permitted Capacity. The Board's treasurer shall bill the Parties for emergency expenditures pursuant to a schedule approved by the Board, and the Parties shall pay such bills within sixty (60) days of receipt. Each Party shall be responsible for financing its respective share of such emergency expenditures. The Parties may jointly or individually apply for federal or state grants or loans to pay for all or a portion of their share, or may raise the funds by other means. 7.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party may elect not to participate in a capital project to expand the Permitted Capacity, in which case it shall not be required to pay for the project or co-sign any related financing, including bonds. The non -participating Party shall not 15 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT have any ownership interest in, nor utilize, the expanded capacity unless and until the non- participating Party buys some of that capacity from another Party or Parties. 7.6 Before each New Owner becomes. an owner, or for other compelling reasons, the capital project fund(s) balances or a portion thereof may be distributed, upon unanimous consent of the existing owners, to the existing owners in proportion to their payments into the f rnd(s). Each Party shall thereafter pay into the capital project fund(s) amounts proportionate to their ownership interests in the Permitted Capacity. 7.7 The term "capital expenditure" shall include, but not be limited to, the following: construction costs of any improvements to the Treatment Facilities, including site preparation, demolition, and deactivation of existing facilities; Treatment Facilities' machinery, equipment and furnishings; planning costs; engineering and legal fees; administrative expenses; costs of land acquisition for joint facilities; and flow monitoring meters for determining allocations of costs pursuant to this Agreement. This term shall not include each Party's respective internal laterals, interceptors and sewer facilities that serve only that Party. 7.8 Attached as Exhibit D is a list of capital projects receiving New York State Clean Water Clean Air Bond Act funding, and a schedule showing which Parties are paying for each project and the Parties' respective allocations of cost. 7.8 Attached as Exhibit E is a schedule of bonds and their expiration dates for improvements to the Treatment Facilities that have been financed by one or more Parties. Repayment of these bonds is the responsibility of the issuing Party or Parties. 8. Financing of Jointly Owned Interceptors 8.1 Interceptors that are or will be jointly used by all of the Parties are identified on the maps and schedule annexed hereto as Exhibit F. Each party's ownership as of the Effective Date of this Agreement is reflected in the schedule. Unless otherwise specified, references to. 16 I I n 11 1 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT jointly owned interceptors in this Section 8 shall mean interceptors that are used by all the Parties. 8.2 The annual budget developed by the Board shall include separate budget lines for maintenance and replacement of jointly owned interceptors. The Board shall develop funding plans for the replacement of such interceptors. 8.3 The Board annually shall utilize master wastewater flow meter readings to ascertain the wastewater flows from each Party through each jointly owned interceptor during the latest twelve (12) month period for which figures are available preceding August 1. 8.4 The Board annually shall allocate costs among the Parties for maintenance and replacement of jointly owned interceptors in proportion to each Parry's average flows through the interceptor during the past five years (or from the time the Party began using the interceptor, if it has not used it for at least five years). 8.5 The Board shall bill the Parties quarterly for costs related to maintenance and replacement of jointly owned interceptors. The Parties shall pay their respective bills for interceptor costs within five (5) days of receipt. 8.6 Before beginning use of a jointly owned interceptor for the first time, the Party shall pay the Board a payment equal to that Party's proportionate share of the maintenance costs for the interceptor for the quarter in which that Party begins using it, pro -rated from the date the Party will begin to use the interceptor until the first date included on the next quarterly bill from the Board. Upon receipt of this payment, the Board shall reallocate the financial responsibilities of the other Parties using that interceptor and shall distribute to them their proportionate share of 11 the payment. 8.7 Parties purchasing capacity shall pay for the pro-rata capital value of any jointly used interceptors that will convey the new flows. The purchasing Party shall make the payment before conveying any new flows associated with the capacity purchase. The payment shall be 17 t h r 1 [I 1. JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT made to and be apportioned among the Parties that previously paid for the capital costs of each such interceptor. Apportionment of the payment shall be based on each Party's proportionate capital investment in the interceptor. 8.8 The amount of the payment for a jointly owned interceptor that will convey new flows from Parties purchasing capacity shall be determined by adding together (1) the present value of all Parties' net capital investments in the interceptor, and (2) all interest paid by the Parties, from the date of original bond issue to the date of capacity sale, associated with interceptor capital expenditures. This sum shall then be multiplied by the number of gallons to be purchased and divided by the capacity of the interceptor to determine the payment amount for the interceptor. 8.9 Expenses for any jointly owned interceptors that are not identified in Exhibit F (such as a newly proposed interceptor) shall be included in the Treatment Facilities' budget only if all of the Parties consent in writing to include the interceptor in the budget and further agree in writing upon their respective allocations of future financial responsibility for the interceptor. 8.10 Before any Party installs or replaces a jointly owned interceptor, or an interceptor which may reasonably be expected in the future to be jointly used, the involved Parties shall be notified in writing and consulted as to the interceptor's size. The incremental costs for increasing the size of an existing jointly owned interceptor shall be paid by the Party or Parties requesting the increase. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all Parties shall pay their share of the costs to increase the size if the increase is needed to remedy a condition where the interceptor overflows. 9. Treatment Facilitv Personnel 9.1 Except as provided for in a contract between the Village of Cayuga Heights and Yaw's Environmental Service that exists as of the Effective Date of the Agreement, the City of Ithaca shall be the employer of the personnel assigned to work at the Treatment Facilities. Matters pertaining to the selection, appointment, direction and administration of these 18 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT employees, and matters pertaining to personnel matters, collective bargaining or labor negotiations are the sole prerogative of the City of Ithaca. 9.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board shall oversee and direct, with the City of Ithaca, the actions of the Treatment Facilities' Chief Operator regarding operation of the Treatment Facilities, including but not limited to compliance with the SPDES Permits, Industrial Pretreatment Program(s), and this Agreement, and oversight of personnel under his or her supervision. The City shall consult with the other Parties about personnel matters regarding the Chief Operator, but the City shall maintain sole discretion to make decisions and take actions regarding such matters. Whenever the Chief Operator position becomes vacant, the Board will establish a selection committee comprised of representatives from each Party. The committee shall review candidates for the position and make recommendations to the Board as to a preferred candidate. If the candidate is acceptable to the Board, the Board shall transmit this recommendation to the City's appointing officer, who shall have the sole discretion to make the final hiring decision. If the City does not hire the Board's recommended candidate, the City shall provide the other Parties with a written justification of why it did not do so. 9.3 Appropriate expenses relating to City employees assigned to work at the Treatment Facilities shall be considered O&M costs and shall be assessed to the Parties As described in Section 6 above. Appropriate expenses relating to employees of any of the Parties who perform services for the Board shall likewise be considered and assessed as O&M costs if the Board requests the services. The Board's request shall specify the types of costs that are considered appropriate expenses and the level of detail to be included in the bill for services from the Party. 9.4 All personnel assigned to perform services for the Board or at the Treatment Facilities shall possess the same powers, duties, immunities and privileges they would ordinarily possess if they performed their duties only for and in the municipality by which they are employed. 10. Treatment Facilities Operation 19 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 10.1 All of the Parties shall be named as permittees on the SPDES Permits issued by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation for the Treatment Facilities. The City of Ithaca, through its Department of Public Works, shall operate and maintain the Treatment Facilities in a manner consistent with the requirements of the SPDES Permits. The Treatment Facilities' operations costs shall be considered O&M costs and shall be assessed to the Parties as described in Section 6 above. 11. Industrial Pretreatment Programs) 11.1 The Board shall review on an annual basis the effectiveness of the Treatment f ' Facilities' Industrial Pretreatment Program(s), including the Parties' respective laws and ordinances regarding the use of sewers. Such laws and ordinances shall be consistent with one another. The Board shall report annually on the foregoing matter to the Parties and shall furnish such information and data as may be required by the Parties. 1 11.2 The Board shall oversee and direct the actions of the Treatment Facilities' Chief Operator regarding the Industrial Pretreatment Program(s). Each Party delegates to the Chief Operator the primary responsibility for implementation of the Industrial Pretreatment Program(s), including but not limited to inspecting industrial users, sampling their wastewater discharges, requiring the submission of reports and notices from industrial users, issuing wastewater discharge permits, and controlling discharges of septage. The Chief Operator shall act in accordance with the powers and duties spelled out in each Party's sewer use laws and ordinances, as they may be amended from time to time. 11.3 Each Party delegates to the Board and Treatment Facilities' Chief Operator the respective enforcement powers granted to the Board and Chief Operator through that Party's sewer use laws and ordinances, as they may be amended from time to time. The Town of Dryden, City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca also delegate to the Board those enforcement powers that were previously granted to the Special Joint Subcommittee. These powers include, but are not limited to, the authority to: immediately halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants which 20 1 11 1 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT reasonably appears to present an immediate endangerment to the health or welfare of persons, in accordance with each Parry's laws and ordinances; halt or prevent other harmful discharges of pollutants, as described in each Party's laws and ordinances; publish lists of industrial users who were or are in significant noncompliance with pretreatment requirements and standards; issue notices of violation and compliance orders; and call, arrange and conduct hearings regarding violations of law, wastewater discharge permits, or pretreatment standards or requirements. 11.4 Each Party retains the sole authority to undertake the following enforcement actions against industrial users within their respective jurisdictions: assess and impose civil administrative penalties; seek legal and/or equitable relief in court, and suspend or revoke wastewater discharge permits (except the Chief Operator may also seek judicial relief and suspend or revoke permits in situations involving discharges which present imminent endangerment or constitute harmful discharges, as described in the Parties' sewer use laws and ordinances). 12. Title to Property 12.1 All Treatment Facilities' real property and improvements thereon, including the wastewater treatment plant sites and easements for jointly owned interceptors, shall be owned by the Parties as tenants in common in proportion to their respective ownership interests in the_ treatment plants, related facilities, and jointly owned interceptors. All real estate, improvements and easements previously or hereafter obtained in connection with the Treatment Facilities shall be held and used only for the purposes of the Treatment Facilities unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. Record title for the Treatment Facilities shall be in the names of all the Parties. If for any reason record title is not as set forth in this paragraph, the Parties agree that the ownership of the real property, improvements and easements shall nonetheless be as set forth above. The Parties agree, because of the special use and need for the properties dedicated to the Treatment Facilities, to waive any right any Party might have to bring an action for partition or other division of same. This paragraph shall not apply to any real property, improvements, or easements that are owned and used by only one Party, such as sewer lines that service and are paid for by only one Party. 21 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 1 ' 13. Tax Exemption 13.1 To the extent permitted by law, each Party agrees to take such, steps as may be necessary to exempt. from real property taxation any of the real property, real property improvements, easements, interceptors, or other facilities associated with the Treatment 1 Facilities that are located within the municipal boundaries of such Party. Each Party further agrees, to the extent permitted by law, not to assess or levy taxes against such properties. 14. Bondine, AuditinL and Accounting 1 14.1 The Board shall designate fiscal officers and employees who may handle the Treatment Facilities' funds. Before receiving any monies on account of the Treatment Facilities, such persons shall give a corporate surety bond for the faithful performance of their duties and a full accounting of all Treatment Facilities' monies handled by them. The bonds shall be in amounts as the Board shall prescribe and the Board shall approve the bonds as to form and sufficiency of surety. An endorsement on an existing surety bond meeting the requirements set forth above shall be sufficient. 14.2 Persons receiving Treatment Facilities' monies shall deposit them in separate accounts in one or more banks, trust companies, or credit unions authorized by law to receive deposits of funds on behalf of the respective Parties. No expenditures shall be made from said separate account or accounts except after an audit according to normal auditing and payment procedures of the Parties and in accordance with the provisions of Section 119-o of the N.Y. General Municipal Law. 14.3 Unless the Parties unanimously agree otherwise, the Board's books and records will be audited annually by a reputable accounting firm chosen by the Board in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices in. the Tompkins County area for the audit of municipalities. Copies of such audits shall be distributed to the Board and each Party, and the iBoard shall review each audit. In addition, if any Party desires to have its own, more extensive or 22 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT i, different audit it may do so, provided, however, that the cost of such audit (including the cost of a Party's staff time and expense in providing information to conduct such audit) shall be paid by - the Party requesting the audit. The Board and each Party shall also receive copies of the annual _ financial report submitted to the Office of the State Comptroller. ' 15. Resuonsibility for Damages and Claims C15.1 In the event any liability is asserted against any of the Parties hereto arising out of the construction; operation or maintenance of the Treatment Facilities, the Parties shall be C severally liable for the defense and payment of such claims, the proportions being in the same proportion as the Parties' responsibility for the Treatment Facilities' O&M costs for the calendar year in which payment on such claim is made (in the event partial payments are made in different calendar years, the proportion of each payment shall be the allocation effective at the time of such partial payment, with the allocation as to any subsequent payment to conform to the allocation in effect at the time of the subsequent partial payment). If a Party pays more than its share of defense costs and/or claims, then the Parties that have paid less than their respective shares shall reimburse the Party that has paid more so that each Party's net outlays equal their respective shares. Reimbursements shall be made within sixty (60) days of receipt of the reimbursement request. If the claim arises out of a jointly owned interceptor, the Parties' liability shall be proportionate to their responsibility for payments for maintenance of that interceptor pursuant to paragraph 8.4 at the time of the payment(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the claim arises out of (1) a Party's alleged failure to undertake any of the enforcement actions listed in paragraph 11.4 against an industrial user within its jurisdiction, or (2) real property, improvements or easements that are owned and used by only one Party, then that Party shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend, indemnify, protect and save harmless the other Parties and their employees, elected and appointed officials, and agents from all costs arising out of such claims, including but not limited to damages, judgments, penalties, fines, and reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees. 15.2 Any Party receiving notice of a claim relating to the Treatment Facilities shall immediately give written notice of such to the other Parties and Board. 23 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 15.3 The Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing shall not be liable for claims related to the Treatment Facility located in the City of Ithaca that arose before, but are asserted after, the Effective Date of this Agreement. None of the Parties except the Village of Cayuga Heights shall be liable for claims related to the Treatment Facility formerly owned by the Village of Cayuga Heights that arose before, but are asserted after, the Effective Date of this Agreement. 15.4 In the event this Agreement terminates or a Party terminates its participation pursuant to Section 16, the Parties shall not be relieved of their liabilities and obligations in paragraph 15.1 that were incurred prior to the termination, including claims that arose before, but were asserted after, such termination. 15.5 The Board, or any of the Parties on behalf of and at the request of the Board, may place or take out appropriate insurance against any such possible liability for the protection and benefit of the Board, Treatment Facilities and each individual Party. Any Parry taking out such insurance at the request of the Board and paying the premiums thereof shall be reimbursed by the Board. The premiums for any such insurance coverage shall be included in O&M costs and included in the calculation of the O&M rate. 16. Duration 16.1 This Agreement shall continue in force until May 15, 2026, which is forty (40) years after the original bonds were issued for the Treatment Facility located in the City of Ithaca. Upon the expiration of the original term, this Agreement may be renewed for additional terms of at least five (5) years each upon the written consent of all the Parties. 16.2 If a Party wishes to terminate its participation in the Agreement at the expiration of the original or a renewal term, it must give written notice to the other Parties at least four (4) years prior to the expiration of the term, which notice shall contain the reason for such termination. Upon the expiration of the term, if two or more of the other Parties continue to 24 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT operate jointly the Treatment Facilities, the terminating Party shall thereafter have no ownership interest in the Treatment Facilities or the Board's operating or capital project funds, nor shall the terminating Party be able to recover any of its initial or subsequent contributions, payments or investments made pursuant to this Agreement. The terminating Party's ownership interests in the Permitted Capacity and capacity in jointly owned interceptors, as well as in all Treatment Facilities' assets and funds, shall be reallocated to the remaining Parties in proportion to their respective interests in these items. The remaining Parties shall make application to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or its successor agency to remove the terminating Party from the SPDES Permits. 16.3 Upon termination of this Agreement as to all the Parties, and unless the Parties agree otherwise, the assets of the Treatment Facilities shall be allocated and distributed to the then -remaining Parties based upon each Party's proportionate ownership interests in the Permitted Capacity as of the date of termination. 17. Consent and Notification of Parties and Board 17.1 Whenever the consent of a Party is required under this Agreement, a majority vote of the frill possible voting strength of the Party's governing body shall be necessary for that Party to give its consent. Whenever this Agreement requires the consent of the Parties, all of the Parties must give their consent before the proposed action can be undertaken. 17.2 Where notification is required by this Agreement to be given to a Party or the Board, it shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed, postage prepaid, to the secretary of the Board, to the following address or other address hereafter designated in writing by the Board: Secretary, . Board, .535 Third Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. The secretary of the Board shall forward the notification to each member of each Party's governing body at each governing body's office no later than ten (10) business days after its receipt. 18. Desienation of ALrent Municipality 25 C� L JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT 18.1 If required by law or if otherwise desirable to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties agree to designate one of the governing bodies of the Parties to implement this Agreement by executing documents, formally letting bids, applying for grants or loans, arranging financing, and to perform any actions that by law must be conducted by a governing body of a municipality and may not be conducted by or delegated to the Board, or which may be more conveniently performed by a Party on behalf of the Board. Subject to the right to change this designation in the future, the Parties hereby designate the City of Ithaca for such purposes. The Board shall reimburse the designated Party for only direct costs incurred by the Party in rendering such services, including any payroll and fringe benefit expenses associated with such services. The Board's annual operating budget shall specify the costs eligible for reimbursement. Such reimbursement shall be an O&M expense and shall be included in the O&M rate. 19. Enforcement of Agreement and Damages 19.1 If a Party violates any terms of this Agreement, any other Party may seek injunctive relief, damages and/or other relief in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Tompkins County. The Parties may engage in mediation if all Parties to the dispute agree to do SO. 20. Further Documents 20.1 The Parties agree to amend or supplement this Agreement in the future to provide any additional authority which the Parties deem necessary to adequately and properly operate, maintain, and construct improvements to the Treatment Facilities. 21. IlleLyality of Part 21.1 In the event that there shall be a final adjudication that any provision or provisions of this Agreement is, are or shall be invalid, illegal or contrary to public policy, such 26 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT adjudication shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Agreement, and such other provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 22. Entire Agreement and Amendments ' 22.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the Parties. It may be amended only by the written consent of all of the Parties, with each Party executing and acknowledging the document containing the amendment through its duly authorized representative. ' 23. GoverninLy Law ' 23.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. 24. Authorization to Enter Agreement ' 24.1 Each Party represents and warrants that (a) this Agreement has been presented to its governing body; (b) its governing body has approved this Agreement by a majority vote of the i full possible voting strength of that governing body; and (c) if required, all steps by way of public hearings and/or referendum or otherwise have been taken by the time of execution of this ' Agreement. Resolutions of each governing body approving this Agreement are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit G. 25. Assienments and Transfers 25.1 Except as specifically provided for in this Agreement, no Party may assign or transfer its rights and interests in the Treatment Facilities and this Agreement to another entity without the prior written consent of all of the other Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if one ' Party dissolves into, merges with, or wholly annexes another Party, the Party remaining after the dissolution, merger or annexation, or the new merged municipality, as the case may be, shall retain all of the rights and interests in the Treatment Facilities (including plant ownership and 27 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT capacity) and in this Agreement that were held by the two Parties immediately prior to the dissolution, merger or annexation, except such remaining Party or new merged municipality shall be considered one owner (not two) and will be entitled to appoint two members (not four) to the Board. 26. New Owners 26.1 A municipality may become a New Owner only if this Agreement is amended to add the New Owner as a Party and the amendment is executed by all the Parties and the New Owner. If a new municipality is created out of part of one or more Parties and part of the Service Area lies within the newly created municipality's jurisdiction, then the Parties shall amend this Agreement to add the newly created municipality as a New Owner and the amendment shall become effective upon its execution by all the Parties and the newly created municipality. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers and sealed with their corporate seals on the day(s) and year set forth below. Attest: Village Clerk Village of Cayuga Heights VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS By: Walter Lynn, Mayor Village of Cayuga Heights Dated: W. JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT Attest: TOWN OF DRYDEN By: Town Clerk Mark Varvayanis, Supervisor Town of Dryden Town of Dryden Dated: Attest: CITY OF ITHACA By: City Clerk Alan J. Cohen, Mayor City of Ithaca, New York City of Ithaca, New York Dated: Attest: TOWN OF ITHACA By: Town Clerk Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca, New York Town of Ithaca, New York Dated: i 29 JULY 31, 2002 DRAFT Attest: TOWN OF LANSING By: Town Clerk Stephen Farkas, Supervisor Town of Lansing Town of Lansing Dated: Attest: VILLAGE OF LANSING By: Village Clerk Donald Hartill, Mayor Village of Lansing Village of Lansing Dated: [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO BE ADDED] 30 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. July 31, 2002 DRAFT JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT LIST OF EXHIBITS Available Capacity and Usage by Party Service Area Map Methodology to Determine Maximum Monthly Average Flows New York State Clean Water'Clean Air Bond Act Project Funding & Allocations Schedule of Bonds Jointly Owned Interceptors Used by All Parties Governing Body Resolutions APPENDIX 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1 VU PROJECT SHEDULE: Objectives A. Pump Stations Task 1: Construct pump stations Task 2: Generators & electric service Task 3: 10-inch parallel force main Task 4: Construct gravity sewer Task 5: Restoration B. Cayuga Heights Diversion to the Ithaca Area WWTP Task 1: Kline Rd. metering manhole Task 2: 12-inch sewer (Kline Rd.) Task 3: Remington Rd metering manhole Task 4: 12-inch sewer (Remington Rd.) Task 5: Restoration C. Transmission Main to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 1: 21-inch sewer from Reach Run to Burdick Hill Rd. Task 2: 24-inch sewer from Burdick Hill Rd to Twin Glens area on the old railroad ROW Task 3:24--inch sewer from the Twin Glens area to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 4: Restoration D. Collection System for the Myers Rd. Service Area Task 1: Vacuum collection system Task 2: Low lift sewage pump station Task 3: Generator, vacuum collection station, and wiring & electric service Task 4: Vacuum collection system Task 5: Gravity sewer Task 6: Force main sewer Task 7: Restoration E. Transmission for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: interceptor sewer on Portland Point Rd. Task 2: Interceptor sewer from Woodsedge Rd. to the end of the transmission main Task 3: Restoration F. Collector Sewers for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: S-, 10-, and 12-inch collector sewers Task 2: 4-inch lateral sewers Task 3: Restoration 7-1 2002 Jan Feb Mar' Apr May Jun' Jul Aug Sep - Oct Nov Dec Date Filled Out: 01/31/02 Objectives A. Pump Stations Task 1: Construct pump stations Task 2: Generators & electric service Task 3: 10-inch parallel force main Task 4: Construct gravity sewer Task 5: Restoration B. Cayuga Heights Diversion to the Ithaca Area WWTP Task 1: Kline Rd. metering manhole Task 2: 12-inch sewer (Kline Rd.) Task 3: Remington Rd metering manhole Task 4: 12-inch sewer (Remington Rd.) Task 5: Restoration C. Transmission Main to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 1: 21-inch sewer from Reach Run to Burdick Hill Rd. Task 2: 24-inch sewer from Burdick Hill Rd to Twin Glens area on the old railroad ROW Task 3:24—inch sewer from the Twin Glens area to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 4: Restoration D. Collection System for the Myers Rd. Service Area Task 1: Vacuum collection system Task 2: Low lift sewage pump station Task 3: Generator, vacuum collection station, and wiring & electric service Task 4: Vacuum collection system Task 5: Gravity sewer Task 6: Force main sewer Task 7: Restoration E. Transmission for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: Interceptor sewer on Portland Point Rd. Task 2: Interceptor sewer from Woodsedge Rd. to the end of the transmission main Task 3: Restoration F. Collector Sewers for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: 8-, 10-, and 12-inch collector sewers Task 2: 4-inch lateral sewers Task 3: Restoration 2004 1 Jan Feb Mar- Apr May Jan' Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MMM110- ON- 7-3 Date Filled Out: 01/31/02 Objectives A. Pump Stations Task 1: Construct pump stations Task 2: Generators & electric service Task 3: 10-inch parallel force main Task 4: Construct gravity sewer Task 5: Restoration B. Cayuga Heights Diversion to the Ithaca Area WWTP Task 1: Kline Rd. metering manhole Task 2: 12-inch sewer (Kline Rd.) Task 3: Remington Rd metering manhole Task 4: 12-inch sewer (Remington Rd.) Task 5: Restoration C. Transmission Main to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 1: 21-inch sewer from Reach Run to Burdick Hill Rd. Task 2: 24-inch sewer from Burdick Hill Rd to Twin Glens area on the old railroad ROW Task 3:24--inch sewer from the Twin Glens area to the Cayuga Heights WWTP Task 4: Restoration D. Collection System for the Myers Rd. Service Area Task 1: Vacuum collection system Task 2: Low lift sewage pump station Task 3: Generator, vacuum collection station, and wiring & electric service Task 4: Vacuum collection system Task 5: Gravity sewer Task 6: Force main sewer Task 7: Restoration E. Transmission for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: Interceptor sewer on Portland Point Rd. Task 2: Interceptor sewer from Woodsedge Rd. to the end of the transmission main Task 3: Restoration F. Collector Sewers for the South Lansing Service Area Task 1: 8-, 10-, and 12-inch collector sewers Task 2: 4-inch lateral sewers Task 3: Restoration 2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 Do- C�M 0 7-3 Date Filled Out: 01/31/02 APPENDIX 3 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS The following is a description of soil associations in the Study Area. Some soil units have been digitized as a soil association, but the description provided is based upon the individual descriptions provided by the USDA. These soil units are noted with an asterisk following the soil name. Soil types found within the study area are described as follows: ■ Aurora -Angola*: The Aurora series consists of moderately deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial till. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 75%. Bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from neutral to strongly acid. The Angola series consists of moderately deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in glacial till. They are nearly level to moderately sloping soils. Slopes range from 0 to 15%. Bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is slow. Acidity ranges from medium acid to mildly alkaline. " ■ Aurora -Farmington -Manlius*: The Aurora series consists of moderately deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial till. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 75%. Bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from neutral to strongly acid. The Farmington series consists of shallow, well drained and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in till. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. Permeability is moderate or moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from moderately acid to neutral. The Manlius series consists of moderately deep, well drained to excessively drained soils formed in shaly glacial till. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from very strongly acid to strongly acid. ■ Ellery-Erie Alden*: The Erie series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy till. These soils are of uniform slope and slopes range from 0 to 25%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to slow. Acidity ranges from moderately acid to moderately alkaline. The Alden series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils on upland till plains. Slopes range from 0 to 3%. Permeability ranges from slow to moderately slow. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to slightly alkaline. In general, this soil association is too wet for construction of any sort, including the proposed sanitary sewer improvements. I ■ Erie -Langford*: The Erie series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy till. These soils are of uniform slope and slopes range from 0 to 25%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to slow. Acidity ranges from moderately acid to moderately alkaline. The Langford series consists of very deep, ` moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to very slow. Acidity ranges from neutral to very strongly acid. In ' general, this soil association is too wet for construction of any sort, including the proposed sanitary sewer improvements. ' Hamlin, fan -Palmyra*: The Hamlin series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium on flood plains and high bottoms. Slopes range from 0 to 30%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges. from strongly acid to mildly alkaline. The Palmyra series consists of deep, well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils formed -in glacial outwash. They are nearly level to L very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 40%. Depth to bedrock is greater. than 60-inches. Permeability is moderate or moderately rapid. ' Acidity ranges from mildly to slightly acid. .' Hamlin -Teel*: The Hamlin series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium. Permeability is moderate. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Slopes range from 0 to 30%. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to mildly alkaline. The Teel series consists of very deep, moderately ' well drained soils on floodplains. They formed in nearly level areas and slopes range from 0 to 3%. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to neutral. . ■ Howard-Arkport*: Howard soils consist of very deep, well drained soils formed in medium textured glacial outwash deposits. The soils are on valley terraces, outwash plains, kame moraines, and eskers with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from rapid to moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The Arkport series consist of very deep, well drained ' soils. Slope ranges from 0 to 60%. Permeability is moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from slightly to strongly acid. ■ Howard-Chenango*: Howard soils consist of very deep, well drained soils formed in medium textured glacial outwash deposits. The soils are on valley terraces, outwash plains, kame moraines, and eskers with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability �., ranges from rapid to moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to i Emoderately alkaline. The Chenango series consists of very deep, well and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in water -sorted material. Slope ' ranges from 0 to 60%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to rapid. Acidity ranges from very strongly acid to moderately acid. ` Y P Howard —Palm ra*: Howard soils consist of very deep, well drained soils Y formed in medium textured glacial outwash deposits. The soils are on valley ' terraces, outwash plains, kame moraines, and eskers with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ' ranges from rapid to moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The Palmyra series consists of deep, well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial outwash. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 40%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability is moderate or moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from mildly to slightly acid. ■ Howard -Phelps*: Howard soils consist of very deep, well drained soils formed in medium textured glacial outwash deposits. The soils are on valley terraces, outwash plains, kame moraines, and eskers with slopes ranging from 0 to 70%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from rapid to moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The Phelps series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial outwash. They are nearly level and gently sloping soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 8%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to moderately rapid. Acidity ranges from neutral to moderately alkaline. !� Hudson —Dunkirk*: The Hudson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in clayey and silty lacustrine sediments. They are nearly level to very steep soils and slopes range from 0 to 60 %. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderately slow to slow. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to neutral. The. Dunkirk series consists of very deep, well drained, silty soils. Slope. ranges from 0 to 60 %. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to moderately slow. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to mildly alkaline. ■ Hudson -Rhinebeck*: The Hudson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in clayey and silty lacustrine sediments. They are nearly level to very steep soils and slopes range from 0 to 60 %. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderately slow to slow. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to neutral. The Rhinebeck series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in clayey lacustrine sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 15 %. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability is slow to moderate. Acidity ranges from srongly acid to slightly alkaline. ■ Kendaia—Lyons: This soil unit is digitized and described as a soil association. This unit consists of somewhat poorly drained (Kendaia) and poorly drained (Lyons), nearly level soils. The Lyons soils make up 20 to 30 % of many of these soil association areas. The major concern with this soil unit is wetness and often, tile and surface drains are required to make use of these areas. Slopes typically range from 0 to 3 %. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. ■ Langford -Erie*: The Langford series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to very slow. Acidity ranges from neutral to very strongly acid. The Erie series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy till. These soils are of uniform slope and slopes range from 0 to 25%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to slow. Acidity ranges from moderately acid to moderately alkaline. In general, this soil association is too wet for construction of any sort, including the proposed sanitary sewer improvements. ■ Lansing-Conesus*: The Lansing series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in glacial till. They are nearly level to rolling and steep soils on till plains with slopes ranging from 0 to 60%. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to moderately alkaline. The Conesus series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in till. They are nearly level to moderately steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 25%. Permeability ranges from very slow to moderate. Acidity ranges from strongly acid to moderately alkaline. ■ Lordstown-Langford*: The Lordstown series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 90%. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from very strongly acid to neutral. The Langford series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 509/6. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from moderate to very slow. Acidity ranges from neutral to very strongly acid. In general, this soil association is too wet for construction of any sort, including the proposed sanitary sewer improvements. 1 ■ Lordstown-Mardin*: The Lordstown series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 90%. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from very �. strongly acid to neutral. The Mardin series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to i 50%. Depth to bedrock ranges from 60. inches to 20 feet or more. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. ' Lordstown-Mardin-Langford*: The Lordstown series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils. They are nearly level to very steep soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 90%. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from very strongly acid to neutral. The Mardin series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Depth to bedrock ranges from 60 inches to 20 feet or more. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. The Langford series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils -formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability is moderate above the fragipan, and slow or very slow in and below the fragipan. Acidity ranges from neutral to very strongly acid. In general, this ' soil association is too wet for construction of any sort, including the proposed sanitary sewer improvements. Ovid -Ilion*: The Ovid series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly . drained soils formed in moderately fine textured, reddish colored till. Slopes ' range from 0 to 35%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. The Ilion series consists of deep or very deep, poorly drained soils formed in till. They are nearly level or gently sloping soils with slopes ranging from 0 to 8%. Depth to. bedrock II ranges from 40 inches to more than 8 feet. Permeability ranges from moderate to very slow. Palmyra: The Palmyra series consists of deep, well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial outwash. They are nearly level to very steep soils. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60-inches. Slopes range from 0 to 40%. Permeability is moderate or moderately rapid. Acidity .� ranges from mildly to slightly acid. ■ Sloan-Madalin-Fonda*: The Sloan series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in alluvium on flood plains.. These moderate or moderately slowly permeable soils have slopes ranging from 0 to 2%. Acidity ranges from slightly alkaline to neutral. The Madalin series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils. Slope ranges from 0 to 3%. Depth to bedrock ranges from 40 inches to 30 feet or more. Permeability is slow or very slow. L ' Acidity ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The Fonda series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in fine -textured, ' water -sorted sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 1%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability is slow or very slow. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to moderately alkaline. ■ Sloan -Teel, alluvial land*: The Sloan series -consists of'very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in alluvium on flood plains. These moderate or moderately slowly permeable soils have slopes ranging from 0 to 2%. Acidity ranges from slightly alkaline to neutral. The Teel series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on floodplains. They are formed in nearly level areas and slopes range from 0 to 3%. Permeability is moderate. Acidity ranges from slightly acid to neutral." Volusia-Mardin*: The Volusia series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy till. Slopes range from 0 to 25%. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Permeability ranges from very slow to t.� moderate. Acidity ranges from very strongly acid to mildly acid. The Mardin series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy fj till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Depth to bedrock ranges from 60 inches to - 20 feet or more. Permeability ranges from slow to moderate. The Langford -- series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. Slope ranges from 0 to 50%. Bedrock is at depths greater than 60 inches. Permeability is moderate above the fragipan, and slow or very slow in and below the fragipan. Acidity ranges from neutral to very strongly acid. t u APPENDIX 4 RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CORRESPONDENCE Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182358051; Feb-4-02 11:27AM; Page 2 New York State Department of Environmental Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 51h floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 • FAX: (518) 402-8925 Website: www.dee.state.nv.us August 30, 2001 Sarah Daniels Chazen Engineering 110 Glen St. Glens Falls, NY 12801 Dear Ms. Daniels: Conservation A& Erin M. Crotty Commissioner in response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to the proposed Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities for the City and Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden, and Village of Lansing, area as indicated on the map you provided, located in Tompkins County. Enclosed is a report of rare or state -listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats, which our databases indicate occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The information contained in this report is considered sensitive and may not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The presence of rare species may result in your project requiring additional permits, permit conditions, or review. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), �- please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits at the enclosed address. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted, the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state -listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on -site surveys that may be required for environmental impact assessment. Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current information. i cerely, �1�lm orma on ervices NY Natural Heritage Program Encs. cc: Reg. 7, Wildlife Mgr. Reg. 7, Fisheries Mgr. Reg. 7, Bureau of Habitat Peter Nye, Endangered Species Unit, 518-402-8859 * * * * * * PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE NEW ADDRESS r� Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182358051; Feb-4-02 11:27AM; Page 3 USERS GUIDE TO NY NATURAL HERITAGE DATA ' New York Natural Heritage Program, 7001'roy-Schenectady Road, Latham NY 12110-2400 phone: (519) 793-3932 NATURALHERITAGE PROGRAM "IbeNatumiHcritage Program isan ongoing, systematic, scientific inventorywhose goal is to compile and maintain data on the rare plants and animals native to New York State, and significant ecological communities. The data provided in the report facilitate sound planning, conservation, and natural resource management and help to conserve the plants, animals and ecological communities that represent New York's natural heritage. ' )ATA SENSITIVITY: The data provided in the report are ecologically sensitive and should be treated in a sensitive mariner. Tine report is for your in. house use and should not be released, distributed or incorporated in a public document without prior permission from the Natural Heritage Program. �I i NATURAL HERITAGE REPORTS (may contain any of the following types of data): COUNTY NAME: County where the occurrence of a rare species or significant ecological community is located. TOWN NAME: Town where the occurrence of a rare species or significant ecological community is located. USGS 7'/i TOPOGRAPHIC MAP: Name of 7.5 minute US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (scale 1:24,000). SIZE (acres): Approximate acres occupied by the rare species or significant ecological community at this location. A blank indicates unknown size. SCMN TIC NAME: Scientific name of the occurrence of a rare species or significant ecological community. COMMON NAME: Common name of the occurrence of a rare species or significant ecological community. ELEMENT TYPE: Type of element (i.e. plant, animal, significant ecological community, other, etc.) LAST SEEN: ' Year rare species or significant ecological community last observed extant at this location. EO RANK: Comparative evaluation summarizing the quality, condition, viability and defensibility of this occurrence. Use with LAST SEEN. A-E = Extant: A=excellent, B=good, C=marginal, D=poor, E=extant but with insufficient data to assign a rank of A - D. F = Failed to find. Did not locate species, but habitat is still there and further field work is justified. H = Historical. Historical occurrence without any recent field information. X = Extirpated. Field/other data indicates element/habitat is destroyed and the element no longer exists at this location. 7 = Unknown. Blank = Not assigned. NEW YORK STATE STATUS (animals): Categories of Endangered and Threatened species are defined in New York State Environmental Conservation Law section l 1-0535. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species are listed in regulation 6NYCRR 182.5. E = Endangered Species: any species which meet one of the following criteria: 1) Any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York. 2) Any species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. T = Threatened Species: any species which meet one of the following criteria: - 1) Any native species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in NY. 2) Any species listed as threatened by the U.S. Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of the Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. SC = Special Concern Species: those species which are not yet recognized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented concern exists for their continued welfare in New York. Unlike the first two categories, species of special concern receive no additional legal protection under Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species). P = Protected.Wildlife (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103): wild game, protected wild birds, and endangered species of - wildlife. U = Unprotected (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section I l-0103):-the species maybe taken at anytime without limit; however a license to take may be require G = Game (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103): any of a variety of big game or small game species as stated in the Environmental Conservation Law; many normally have an open season for at least part of the year, and are protected at other times. NEW Y ORK STATE STATUS (plants): The following categories are defined in regulation 6NYCRR part 193.3 and apply to NYS Environmental Conservation Law section 9-1503. E = Endangered Species: listed species are those with: 1) 5 or fewer extant sites, or 2) fewer than 1,000 individuals, or 3) restricted to fewer than 4 U.S.G.S. 7 %, minute topographical maps, or 4) species listed as endangered by U.S. Department of Interior, as enumerated in Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. T = Threatened: listed species are those with: 1) 6 to fewer than 20 extant sites, or 2) 1,000 to fewer than 3,000 individuals, or 3) restricted to not less than 4 or more than 7 U.S.G.S. 7 and %, minute topographical reaps, or 4) listed as threatened by U,S. Department of Interior, as enumerated in Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. R = Rare: listed species have: l) 20 to 35 extant sites, or 2) 3,000 to 5,000 individuals statewide. continued on next page rural Heritage Report on e Species and—� Ecological Communities -. --- g P P g• Prepared 28 August 2001 byNY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner --Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations ofcodes, ranks, and fields. We don of always pmvide maps of locations of species mostvnlnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too I arge to display. Page 1 ` county Towu ScientifcName, NY Legal Status, EO Rank, COMMON INAME, & Heritage Ratdu, & Last Seen, & General Habitat Office Group Name Federal Status Acreage Detailed Locatinn and Quality Use CAYUGA, SENECA, TO.iRCKI.\S LPDYARD, GFNOA, SPRINGPORT, AURELIUS, OVID, COVERT, ROMUi.US, VARICK, FAYETTE, STNEC:A FALLS, I.A:NSING, WATFRFOWL LlNPR01BCTED F. CAYUUAL KE I.ARGE, LONG AND NARROW INLAND 4207666 CONCFNTRATIONAREA ;83S4 1994-01-21 TARE OFGLACIAT.ORMUN,WITH A S other 41 900.00 MEANDEPTH OF 179 FEETANDA MA2aMUIvtDEPTH OF 435 FFEr, AND WHICHDOESNOT FRFF.7_ROVERLC WLyTER TOMPKINS CAROLINE l rollius lacus RARE it lA W8R rASCADLkCREEK SWAMP. 4207644 SPREADING G3; S3 NO DATE SWAMP, WE.Sr OF SLATERVILLE [SPRINCIS], [CASCAnILLA �4 GLOBEFIAWER 0.00 CREEK?]. Vas<.•aL�rIlani CITY OF ITHACA Triphom trianthophom ENDANGERED H CASCADILLAWOODS IN THE WOODS, NEAR A PATH 4207644 NODDING POGONTA 0304; SiS2 1922-08.03 THE PLANT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF Vascular Plant 0.00 THEUPPF.RMOST PATHR; CASCADILLA WOODS,100 YARDS EAST OF TITS STRELT CAR TRESTIZ PotamogatonhillE THREATENED F CAYUGALAKEINI.F.T L MINLET. 4207645 HLI;SPOIIDWEED 03; S2 1924-PRE INLET OFCAYUGALAU. SNVU.I..AREAWELLUI'STREAMFROM VaccularPliwt 0.00 PROBABLE COILECTION POINT SEARCHED IN 1999. Natural Heritage Report on a Species and Ecological Communities CD rh Prepared 28 August 2001 by NY Nalural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner —Please see cover letter. Refer to the U sets' Guide for explanations of cedes, ranks, and fields. We do not always provide maps of locations of species most -vulnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. `D c) Page 2 3 N * County m Town 3 SdenfifcName, NYI,cRalStatus, HOltank, 0 COMMON NAME, & Heritage Ranks, & Last Seen, & General Habitat Office B Group Name F'ederalStatLs Acre e � Detailed Location and Quality Use 0 N• TUMPKIICS mw CITY OF ITHACA "- Finguicula vuigmis . TURRATENED H (KEN POND 4207644 BUTTTFRWORT 05; S2 1879-06-26 CASCADILTACREEK, BOTH SIDES AT GLEV PONT)AND M VasmlarPtant 0.00 FARTHER DOWN THE RAVINE. JULF±4 POND IS AT CA-4CAT)TI ACRffiKAND STIIWARTAVEI. 1'Mgidcula vulgaris THREATENED 11 TRIPHAMMER FALLS WET LIMEY CLIFF. 4207644 (n 13UTTERWORT G5; S2 1920406-20 CLIFFS RFLOW REEBE LAKE, MEARTRIMIAMMER BRIIXHE M 00 Vascular Ha.nt O. W ALSO OPPOSITE ROCKY FALLS. ' GNi w 0 Primula inlstasrinica THRFATT?NED H T'R1PllAM IER FAI7.S DRIPPING CLIFF. 4207644 nnuyS-EYEPRDdROSE 05; S2 1915-05 27 1915-, FALLCREEK GORGF.,SOLTTHSIDE DMOW M Vascular Rant 0.00 TRIPHAN&EMFALLS. 1877: WET ROCKSTMJATIV ONTTJF. NOR•1'H SIDE OF FALLS. 1890:ON "PRIMROSE CLIFFS", FALL CREEK CITY OF ITHACA, MIACA -n Gnaphalihclleri var um ENDANGERED H CASCADILLAWOOM WOODS. 4207644 6 mf&adenium 040! 13?; Sii 1892-09 26 CASCADILI.AWOODS, CORNELL TNMRSITY CAMPUS, M CAT'FOOT 0.00 ITHACA. o Vascular Plant ' N i Moustoniapurpurea gar ENDANGERED H CORNEILU\IVP.RSFTY 4207644 i N calycosa 05T5; SH 1884-08-12 CORN1?LL CAMPS. FISKE MC ORAW GROUNDS. AHOVE M D PURP7_E BLURTS 0.00 WINDMILL, rrHACA, NY. > Vascular Plant Cordulegascerermnea TJNPROTEC= if ITHACA 4207644 TIGER SPIX[ITAIL C'r4; S1 NO DATE �t Dmgonfly/Damseltly 0.00 w cc m 01 a l J- - _L J11161C —port Natural Heritage fie on 'e Species and Ecological Communities CD r+ Prepared 28 August 2001 by NY Natural Heritage Program, N YS DEC, Albany, New York C13 This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner —Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations of codes, ranks, and fields. zr We do not always provide maps of locations of species mostvulnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. Page 3 SD County (D Town = Sdmtifc Name, NY Legal sbt u, EO Rank, o CO:NLMONNA39, & Heritage Ranks, & Last Sem, & General Ilahitat Office a Group Name FedemlStatas Acreage Detailed Luall Location and Q ty [lse m = TOMPKINS N CITY OF TfHACA, rfIUCA Gomphus abbmviatus UNPROTECTED U 11BACA 4207644 SPINECROWNED G3G4; S2S3 NO DATE M CLUBTAIL 0.00 ' Duigonfly0mnse ly ' Gomphus quaddcafor L,NPROTSCTFT) H ITHACA 4207644 en RAPIDS CLUB TAIL C3304; S1S2 NO DATE (rrHAC:A). M N DragonflymamscUy 0.00 CO) to Q) 0 Stylurus scudderi UNPROIECTED H ITHACA 4207644 ZEBRA CTXMTAIL G4; S3 NO DAXFi M Dmgonfly.T)anvzddy 0.00 DRYDEN &lylurusscudderi UNPROTECTED H CASCAUTLACRRP.KGENU1vGROAD CREEK 4207644 CD 6 ZEBRA CIIIBTAIL G4; S3 1954-05-15 CASCADIII.A CRFFIC, NEAR CENUNG ROAD. S Dragonfly/llamsdfly 0.00 , 0 N Apleamm hyemde ENDANGLRL'1I H DRYDEN NFAR TOWNLEY SWAMP. 4207654 i j PUTTYROOT (35; 81 1920-07-18 NEAR TOWNLEY SWAMP, DRYDE.V. M N Vascular Plant 0.00 M D w m U, im r Natural Heritage Report on •e Species and Ecological Communities CD CD 3 rF Prepared 28 August 2001 by NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York m This report contains SENSPPIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner — Please see cover letter. Referto the Users' Guide for explanations of codes, ranks, and fields. CD We do not always provide maps of locations of species most.vulnerab le to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. 0 Page 4 N m " county 3 " Town O 9clentifcNamc, NY Lego] Stains, E0 Rank, COMMONMOU, & Hedtage Ranks, & IAst Seen, & General Iiabbi: OfOce Group Name Federal5tatus Acreage De(ullcd Location and Quality Use SD 3 ' N• m TOMPKINS y DRYDFN Puapaludigena EK-IDANGERED BC DRYDIITLANSINGSWAMP SWAMP. ASSOCIATED SPECIES: 4207654 SEZIN )MLMA.RSRSIE G3; S1 1999-06-25 SWja.MP 1.9 MLSEOF BFANMLL.PLANTSARE0.I MT FRAXII3LTSNIGRA, ACERRUBRUM, S BLUEGRASS I. W NORTH OF SHARP RT—ND IN LKNAMED ROAD, ON TOWN TSIIGA, CARPINUS, VIBURNUM Vascular Plant T.THE, 1.6 MISOUTH 0FSN1rTHCOR_VERS DENTATUM OSIr1UNDACANAVIOMEA, LINDFRA,FAGUS ONOCLEA, CARFX STIPATA, CARE X SPP, IMPATIENS, SYMPLOCARPUS, L.EFRSIA SOILS: ELLERY, CRIPPEWAAND ALL)EN. N PLANTS RIGHLYLOCAf ZED LET GOOD W HABITAT. a' .11,feesia friquerra LNPR.OTLECTED A DRYDEN SLATERVILLE FIR SWAMP RICH SLOPING FR4 WITH OPENINGS 4207643 0 MEESIA 05; S1 199"6-04 FROM SLATP.RVILLE SPRINGS GO NORTH 2.1 MI ON DOMINATFD BY MOSSES AND SEDGM. S Non -vascular Plant 1.00 M1DLI`i rE RD. PLANTS ARE IN RICH SLOPING FEN DORDEREU BY SHNUBS AND GRADDZU IMMEDIATELY EAST OF ROAD. INTO RICHHEMr.00K-HARDWOOD PEAT SWAMP Aq) LNPLAND R)REST. HFALTHY POPULATIONIN DIVERSE, UNDISTURBED FEK. RICH SIAPINO TEN UNPROTECTED AB DRYDL•T` SLATFRVILLE FIR SWA41P A SMALL PATCH OF RICH SLOPTNG FENT 4207643 m Community G3; S1S2 199"6-04 PROCEED 2.1 MI AORTFT FROM SLATERVILL.BSPRINGS ON WHICH GRADES INTO A I ACRE SHRUB is 2.00 MIDLINE ROAD (Tt2ISH SETTLEMENT ROAD ON SOME SWANIP TO THE N. p b&kM). FFN TS DQN JEDIATELY PAST FROM ROADSIDE A SMALL RICH SLOPING FEN WITH N DIVI MSEHER13ANDBRYOPHYTE LAYERS. NO TNV-AM'k':.EXOTICS. i BORDERT.D BY INTACT FOREST TO TILE 1 EBUY VERY CLOSE 10 AROAD AND ro m AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN A SMALL > TO MODERATE SIZE LANDSCAPE BLOCK. m Qj -Q� ma Natural heritage Report on a Species and Ecological Communities CD CD CD rt Prepared 28 August 2001 byNY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York m ;< This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner --Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Glide for explanations of codes, ranks, and fields. We do not always provide maps oflocations of species mostvulnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. Page 5 N CGW3ty #� Town Scientific Name, NY Iqal Status, EO Rank, o COMMONN_4AfF„ & Eleritap Ranks, & Last Seen, & GeneralHabMat Office v Group Name FederalS'tatus Acreage Detatled Location and Quaflty Use v µ . _. TOE DKINS N DRYDEN " • Trollies lazes RARE B DRYDI+N SLATFRVILLE FIR SWAMP RICH HILLSIDEFLN WITH SED(i1~rMOSS 4207643 SPREADING 03; S3 1997 SP FROM SLATERVIILE SPRINGS NORTH 21 N ON NUDI1NF.. DOMINATED. OPENINGS GRADING S GLOBEFLOWER 1.00 ROAD (IRISH SETTIBMIL\iT ROAD ON SOME MAPS). PLANTS INTO RLCH HEMLOCK HARDWOODS . VascularPlanl. ARE B MEDIATFIY EAST FROM ROADSIDE SWAMP AND FINALLY UPLAND FOREST. ASSOCIATED SPECIES: SHRUBS AND 0THERHERn S AT FOREST EDGF, CYPRIPEDIUMREGINAE, RHAMN US ALNIFOL.IA, GEUM RIVALS, q&1I ACINA 00 STELL Ca ESTIMATE 120 PLaNTR I\ VFRI' 00 PRISTLNE SITE C) Cynaglosswa virginianwn tar UNDANGERF) H F1.11S HOLLOW 4207644 `• boreale GST4; 8182 1875-06-25 NEAR ELLIS HOLLOW. � NORTHERN W LD 0.00 COMFRhY Vasc:ularPlant Carec arera ENDANGERED R ETNAS'lATION A SWALE.AT THE EDGF.OF TuE 4207643 NORTIEMN CLUSTERED 05; St 1915-0547 SWALE, SOUTH EDGE OF WOODS, NE OF ETNA STATION, WOODS. M m SEDGE 0.00 DRYDEN. Q Vascular Plant Flatanrhera hookers LNDANGER> D H NORTH SLOPE OF FALL CRIIEX VARNA DRY, GRAVELLY WOODS O_f 'TRF. 4207644 0 N HOORF':R% ORCHID G5; Sl 1913-05-22 FROM VAR)tAFOLLO W FRESFE ROAD NORTH TO THE NORT11 SIDE OFFALL CREEK Vascular Plant 0.00 NORTH BIDE OF FALL CREEK THE PLAT T WAS 1 COI LECTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FALL CREI K WRST cNo OF FRESEE ROAD. D Carya laddniosa TI REATENED H RLNGWOOD 4207643 Y BIG SHF.T.i.-PARKEICKORY G5; S2 1921-12 ROADSIDE,RINGWOOD. M Vascular Plant 0.00 m ca (o 00 Natural Heritage Report ont •e Species and Ecological Communities CD I Prepared 28 August2001 byNY NaturalHetitageProbram,NYS DEC, Albany, New York 03 This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner— Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations of codes, ranks, and fields. . We do not always provide maps of locations of species most vulnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. O Page 6 M, N County m 7 �} Tovm ScicndfcNante, NYLcgc! Statue, EO Rank, a COMMON XAME, & Hedtage Rank% & Last Sea, & General IIabitat Office (.roue Name FederalStaftts Acmuge Detailed Location andQuu6ty Use � m TO-WKINS N DRYDEN Borryrhiean omidense LNDANGERHD H RINGWOOD HOLLOW DAM? WOODS 42Q7643 BLUNT -LOB E GRAPE FEWN 04Q;S193 1917-08-08 NORTHEAST DiDOFRINGWOOD HOLLOW, DRYDEN, N M Vascular Plant 0.00 DA'vIPWOODS. Cvnoglossum %irginianwn u:r ENDANGERED 11 RINGWOOD HOLLOW BORDEROFTHICKer, WOODS. 4207643 cn boreale GST4; S1S2 1917.06-27 RINGWOOD110LLOW; RNI GWOOD. M � N NORTIMRWRD (Ian [A COIvlFRLY co Vascular Plant w C:arec lupuliformis RARE, H TOWNLEY SWAIvI1' OPEN MA12SH 4207654 FALSEHOPSEDGE G4;S2S3 1917-08-04 NN.IrND0FTOWNIE YSWAW- ,DRYDEN[APMOXLMATELY X Vascular Plant O.IH) 141ORTIT OF HOWLAND COR`dF.R.S-?v'W CORNER OF TOWN OF DRYDF.N]. Platantherahookeri MDANGERFD H Tr,RKF.YHMLDRYDEN AHILL 4207644 IIOO'KPR'S ORCHID 05; Sl 1881-07-24 TLTU EY HILL IN THE TOWN OF DRYDFN. Vas=UrPtaut 0.00 Apierlrumhyemale ENDANGERED H WESTDRYDF.N 4207654 N PTITTYROOT G5; Sl 1887-M-04 _ VascularTlant 0.00 -� N (D D DRYDEN, GROTON Poa paludigena FNDANGERED F WYCKOFF SWAMP SWAMP. 4207654 SLE,`iDERMARSH G3;St NODATE VW'YCXDFFSWAMP. EAST OFSCOFIE.DRD.,ATORTHOF RI19LkVEY• VL BLUEGRASS 0.W PRRTJVIT_IH RD. (OLD STATE), WEST OF HOUSE RD, SOUTH VascalarPlant OF FRF.D BROWN RD. -o v ITHACA u� (D co V r S r i,atural Heritage Report on: •e Species and Ecological Communities r- Prepared 28 August 2001 by NY N aturalHeritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner —Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations ofcodes, ranks, and fields. We do not always providemaps oflocations of species mostvulnerable to dist ban ce, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to displa Page 7 County Town ScientUeNume, NYLegal,%Yatus, EORank, COMMON & Heritage Ranks, & Last Seen, & General Habitat Orike Group Name FederalStatus Acreage Detailed Location and Quality Use TOMPKINS ITHACA Pedleudatis lanceolate THREATENED E FALLCREF.K Wer, NIOSSY, SEEDY (-MARGM) STREAM 4207644 SWAMP LOUSEWORT 05; 32 1977-09-20 FALLCREFK, EAST OF ITHACA, FOOTnRMGE VI5113LE BANK ASSOCIATED SPECLFS: OTHER S VascularPlaat 1.00 FROM FOREST HOML DRIVE. PLANTS ARE ON UPSTREAM TALL FORDS: ADIOS, LYrHRUM AND DOWNSTRFAMBANKSOFFALL CRRFXM-4DER1?AR SALICARIA,F.TC. SIDE OF FOOTRRTDCTE. Dauychiumoneidense ENDANOLiRLD H FORESTROME PLU SIT-LOnEORAM3 FERN 04Q; S 1 S3 1904-10-07 WOODS EAST OF FOREST IION0, LTHACA. Vascular Plant 0.00 WOODS. r CD CD 3' (D Y � • w N (D c� 0 a n� N• m N 4207644 02 N M � 00 O (JI i'ytR+ts Wandnt ENDANGERED F SOUTHHILL S WAMP SHALE BARRW APPROXIMATELY 1 4207644 SOUTHERN GRIZZLED G2;S1i 1970SPRE FRO_'dITIIACA,1iOU7rE96A,'DL'TIIAPPAOMIwIATF.LY1D& ACRE SURROUNDEDBYPINE FORES"1'. M SKIPPER 0.00 TO MO RD. EAST ON KDIG ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1 MI EXPOSED SFiAI-E W1TH ESti Ilutterl!):/Skipper TO GASIZZEAMID GADGESIX171ON ON 1EFT. PARKAND , RHODODEN-MONANDSPAGNUM. WALK -NORTH 0.2 MI ON GAS TJTE, WEST ON 'TRAIL GO 0.1 i Mi. SIQPPF,RS ARE NORTH AND SOUTH OF TRAIL. ITHACA, CITY OF ITHACA Arabis drummondii ENDANGERED H F4L.LCREEK 4207644 , DRL'MMONDS ROCK GS; 8182 1899-05-02 g 11 LCREE , ITHACA. M CRESS 0.00 Vascular Plant Polygonwn setaceum var ENDANGERED H FALLCREEK SANDY BANKOF POOL in(erjeaum G5T4; S1S2 1919-09-17 SANDY BANK OF FOOT, FALL CREEK, FOREST HOME, SWAMP SMARTWEED 0.00 ITILACA, TOMPKINS COINTY,NY. MARGIN OF POOL Vascular Plant SOUTH SIDE; OF FAI I. CREEK Arab*drummondii ENDANGERED H SIX MILE CREEK 1917: SHATZ CLIFFOVERHANG: DkLlk POND'S ROCK G5; SiS2 1921-05-15 SIX MITY.. CREEK, TOMPKLNS COUNTY, NY.1917: SHALE CRESS 0.00 CTIFF OVERHANG RELOW GREEN TREE FALLS. 1914: ON V&-mlarl'lanl BTZIFFBELOW SECOND DAM. 4207644 M 4207644 _t (D Cr . 0 N s N D SF M m ua m 0 1 r v r -- — Heritage Report out •e Species and Ecological Communities fn CD Natural Prepared28 Angust2001 byNY NaturalHeritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York tp ;< This report contain SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner —Please see cover I etter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations ofeodes, ranks, and fields. We do not always provide maps of locations of species most vulnerable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. Pago 8 N County fD 3 Town SdentifcName, NY Legal Status, EORank, n COMMONNAl►%& Heritage Rmkl & lAstSeen, & General Habitat Office Group Name FederalStatus Acreage DetalledLocation and Quality IJ..w F+- m N TOMPKINS ITHACA. CI'f'Y OF ITHACA .Poas)tveslris ENDANGERED H SIXMILLCREEK RICHWOODS. 4207644 WOODLAND BLUEGRASS CIS; 91 1917-06-13 RTCH WOODS, RAVINE NORTH OF BF.,AC H WOODS. SIX M VasealarPlanl 0.00 MFTX CREEK, ITHACA. TOMPKINS•COT JNTY,NY. AMPHITHEATRE, NY. Arabis drummondii P.NDANGFRFD H TRIPHANOAM DRY LEDGES ON TEE S SIDE OF 4207644co i DRIWONDS ROCK GS; St S2 1915-06-16 FAJ1.CREEK NEAR TRIPIIAMNII;R FAIT S, ITHACA 1915: RAVINE M ra CA CRESS 0•00 DRY LEDGES ON SOUTH MDE OF THE RAVJNF BEHIND Vascular Plant SIBLEY COLLEGE [CORNFJ.T 3. o Clt ITHACA, DRYDEN Thaspiumirijaiiafuntvar UNPRO71ECTED H CASCADIlI.ACREP.K 4207644 flavum GSTS; &K 1890-06-03 CA.SCADILLA[CREEKj ITHACA, TOWfP'KI.T�S COUNTY, NY., M PURPLE MSADO W PARSKIP 0.00 [CHECK WATERFALL AREAS AND RAVINES]. MmularPlaut -n i m is I..AN-SING Draba araUsans THRLAT]WED C? ESTY GLEN PRISTINE LITTLE GORGE WIT11100 FT 4207645 N ROCK -CRESS 04; S2 1981416-04 EAST SIDLE OF CAYUGALAM 1000 FEET WEST OF THE WATERFALL COLD MICRO•SITE, S Vascular Plant 1.00 JUNCr10NOFROTnS34AND ESTYROAD(BL'RI)1CKHILL VEGBTATI0NVF,RYUNDISTURI3NDIN ROAD ONRF.CBNTMAPS).SOUTH EWE OFSTREAMABOVE PLUNGE-13ASIK. w AN D BELOW FAT.IS. POSSMLY 20-30 ROSETTES, MEMORY D VAGCTE. � y- Apledrumhyemale MMANGERIiD H LANSING 4207644 PUTTYROOT G5; St 1891-06-14 TZEAR DRYDER LANSTNO SW. M VascalarTianl 0.00 co Natural Heritage Report on a Species and Ecological Communities I h Prepared 28 August 2001 by NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York .� This report contains SENSITIVE information that should be treated in a sensitive manner —Please see cover letter. Refer to the Users' Guide for explanations of codes, ranks, and fields. s We do not always provide maps of locations of species mostvulnetable to disturbance, nor of some records whose locations and/or extents are not precisely known or are too large to display. m n Page 9 County N 0) t Town 7 Sdentlfc&me, NY Legal Statiu, EORank, n a cohAi m NAME, & l3 Ahge fib+ & last Seat, & Gencrat Habitat Oftke GroupNmne Federa I Status Acreage DoNfiedLocutlon andQuaGty Use P TOMPTCNS tD W T.AICMG ' Poasylvestrrs ENDANGERED H LTJDLOWVILIZ- VERY RICH WOODS. 4207655 WOODLAND BLUEGRASS 05; S1 1918-06 26 XERYRICH WOODS, WEST HILLSIDE, SALMON CREEK, VascalarTlant 0.00 NORTH OFLUDLOWVa E,LANS1NG,TONPKIASCOUNTY, NY. Potainogcton Mid THRLsA1'L'NFD H JAVERS POINT 4207655 � HILL'S PONDWIED 03; b2 NO DATE. M Va.wularFlaut 0.00 N fJ CT tb O 01 ULYSSES ,. Agastache nepetnrdes THREASL-NMI H GIENIMOOD ROAD 4207645 YELLOW GL6\'T-IIYSSOP CrS; SM 1919-08-10 M-LHANK, G1,bN' l'OOO ROAD, l NQNORTH OF ITHACA M Vascular Plant 0.00 -n In Cr 43 ReeordsProcessed p 0 • N i CA) 0 1 QMW N -.sow v Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182358051; Feb-4-02 11:30AM; Page 13117 1 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3817 LURER ROAD CORM AND, NY 13045 August 31, 2001 Ms. Sarah A.H. Daniels, EA.T. Assistant Project Engineer Chazen Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. 110 Glen Street Glens Falls, NY 12801 Dear Ms. Daniels: This responds to your letter of July 23, 2001, requesting information on the presence of endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the City and Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Dryden, and Village and Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York. Except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. in addition, no habitat in the project impact area is currently designated or proposed 'critical habitat" in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act is required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species or critical habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. A compilation of Federally listed and proposed endangered and threatened species in New York is enclosed for your information. The above comments pertaining to endangered species under our jurisdiction are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. This response does not preclude additional Service comments under other legislation. The slender marsh bluegrass (13 oapaludigena) is knomm to occur in the project area. This species is considered a species of concern (formerly known as Category 2 Candidate species) by the Service and its status is being monitored throughout much of its range. Species of concern do not receive substantive or procedural protection under the Endangered Species Act; however, the Service does encourage Federal agencies and other appropriate parties to consider this species in the planning process. The slender marsh bluegrass is listed as an endangered species by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (State). Project plans should also be coordinated with the State. The State contact for the slender marsh bluegrass is Mr. David VanLeuven, 1 .1 Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182358051; Feb-4-02 11:3iAM; Page 14/17 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Natural Heritage Program Information Services, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233 (telephone: [518] 402-8935). f For additional information on fish and wildlife resources or State -listed species, we suggest you contact the appropriate New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regional office(s) as shown on the enclosed map, and: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage Program Information Services 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 (518) 402-8935 Since wetlands may be present, you are advised that National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps may or may not be available for the project area. However, while the NWI maps are reasonably accurate, they should not be used in lieu of field surveys for determining the presence of wetlands or delineating wetland boundaries for Federal regulatory purposes. Copies of specific NWI maps can be obtained from: Cornell Institute for Resource Information Systems 302 Rice Hidl Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-4864 Work in certain waters and wetlands of the United States may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If a permit is required, in reviewing the application pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service may concur, with or without stipulations, or recommend denial of the permit depending upon the potential adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources associated with project implementation. The need fora Corps permit may he determined by contacting the appropriate Corps office(s) as shown on the enclosed map. If you require additional information please contact Michael Stoll at (607) 753-9334. Sincerely, Acting For David A. Stilwell Field Supervisor Enclosures cc: NYSDEC, Cortland, NY (Environmental Permits) NYSDEC, Albany, NY (Natural Heritage Program, Attn: D. VanLeuven) COE, Buffalo, NY 2 Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182358051; Feb-4-02 11:31AM; Page 15/17 1A rFEDERALLY LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW YORK ' Common Name Scientific Naine Status Distribution FISHES Sturgeon, shortnose* Acipenser brevirostrum E Hudson River & other Atlantic coastal rivers REPTILES Turtle, bog Clemmys muhlenbergii T Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Genesee, Orange, Oswego, . Putnam, Seneca, Ulster, Wayne, and Westchester Counties Turtle, green* Chelonia mydav T Oceanic summer visitor coastal waters Turtle, hawksbill* Erelmochelys imbricata E Oceanic summer visitor coastal Turtle, leatherback* Dermochelys coriacea E waters Oceanic summer resident coastal waters Turtle, loggerhead* Caretta caretta T Oceanic summer resident coastal waters Turtle, Atlantic Lepidochelys kempii E Oceanic summer resident ridley* coastal waters ' BIRDS Eagle, bald Haliaeetus Icucocephalus T Entire state Plover, piping Chara&lus melodus E Great Lakes Watershed Critical Habitat - Eastern ' Lake Ontario shoreline from Salmon River (Oswego County) to Stony Point (Jefferson County) ' T Remainder of coastal New York Tern, roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii E Southeastern coastal portions of state . MAMMALS Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis E Entire state ' Cougar, eastern Felis concolor couglurr E Entire state - probably extinct Whale, blue* Balaenoptera muscuius E Oceanic Whale, finback* Balaenoptera physalus E - Oceanic Whale, humpback* Megaptera nMaeang iae E E Oceanic Oceanic Whale, right* E,u a aena glacialis . Whale, set* Balaenoptera borealis E Oceanic Whale, sperm* Physeter catodon E Oceanic MOLLUSKS Snail, Chittenango Succinea chittenangoensis T Madison County ovate amber Mussel, dwarf wedge Alasmidonta heterodon E Orange County - lower Neversink River Delaware and Sullivan Counties - Delaware River * Except for sea turtle nesting habitat, principal responsibility for these species is vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service. LL 1 Region 5 - 06/12/01 - 2 pp. Sent By: The Chazen Companies; 5182356051; Feb-4-02 11:31AM; Page 16/17 FEDERALLY LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW YORK (Cont'd) Common Name Scientific Name Status Distribution BUrMRFL.IES Butterfly, Karner Lycaeides melissa samuelis E Albany, Saratoga, Warren, blue and Schenectady Counties PLANTS Monkshood, northern Aconftum noveboracense T Ulster, Sullivan, and wild Delaware Counties Pogonia, small whorled Lsotria medeoloides T Entire state Swamp pink Helonias bullata T Staten Island - presumed extirpated Gerardia, sandplain Agalinis acuta E Nassau and Suffolk Counties Fern, American Asplenium scolopendrium T Onondaga and Madison harts -tongue var. americana Counties Orchid, eastern prairie Plalanthera kucophea T Not relocated in New York fringed Bulrush, Scirpus ancistrochaelus E Not relocated in New York northeastern Roseroot, Leedy's Sedum integrifolium ssp. T West shore of Seneca Lake ;. ,. Amaranth, seabeach Leedyi Amaranthus pumilus T Atlantic coastal plain beaches Goldenrod, Houghton's Solidago houghtonii T Genesee County. E=endangered T--threatened P=proposed N Rcglon 5 - 06/12/01 - 7 pp. Cl) 03 317 YfushLuglott SLrLeL CLItfiON -i SlaLe Office Uuildind CD CD lfulerLown, NY 13GUI 6LLA11ILL24CE MANKLM O N (D 7 Route 8G n lStEX O 5 Ray Brook, NY 12977 �E�11]wtl (518) 887-1333 w 610 Eric Duulev,u•d WwlCD Syracuse, NY 13204-2.10U L1.YttS rn , GV4 EasL Avon-LAina [load (315) •12G-7-1311 Avoli, NY 1.1414 7(b)uAtuLluN (719) 2213-2460 8 OSWEGO 1 Rtiz1t n .stuts.-rat ORLEAHS OHEIUA NIAGAM NO!ittOE ITAY14B 'h FULTON m SARATUGA N w OFIVES� cnrucn CJt O1rOu,JACA NABL9oN Nott7L'W1l:,tY O) " o BRtF: oNfAlilO �]vr.LA ��^ .1:11 IRCr Y 1150 NorLh 1YesLeoLL Road I t'fYoNltic lYIN 7 A� ScheneeLady, NY 123M 1 �r YAr1s Cu!tn_•f.t!u_ UTst!GO scttctuH . A:�Al:Y l (5}!9) 357-2088 TOW'XLNS atutAN Zl-(a) SCIIU Y LEII ` CiLku,rAUQUA OJLr[ARAt,OUS N,E,ANY SFEU13EII GRE©IE LLUACMA -n TLOCA llltOWE:— CIIi]lUN UF1I,NAItE a- • O ' IV l 1 7`l ULSCEft �( (a/ [1 C U/ 21 SouLlL PULL Comers [food 1205 Fisher Avenue 9ui11YAti Ut![L31ES9 `3 Ne,r Pally NY 12561 w 182 Ea9L Union, Suite 3 HouLo lU N Cortland, NY 130. 5 (845) 256-3000 y Allegany. NY 14706 SLartlford, NY 12167 (716) 372-01345 (607) 753-2005 (G07) 052-73U•1 Y O1tAIiCE PUTNAIf ram.' 0 1 1 RULKLANU New York S La e RFSICI Ebli]t V Department or 1 nvil oiznzeiZl:al ConservaLiol7 SUtEZ}LECCD - tU I-R egions •17-•10 21•sL SLrccL NEW YOII 1L1U1 2 NAMAU J LonL L,ltutd Cily, IJ]' QU et `s Building 40. SUNI' v (71U) •lU2-•1000 tttClII�UNUGs I Stony Brools, NY L17J. (63L) 4+1-Or3U0 APPENDIX 5 � STAGE lA CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY STAGE IA LITERATURE REVIEW, SENSITIVITYANALYSIS AND ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT I'I'HACA WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights & Town of Dryden Tompkins County, New York. Prepared For. The Chazen Companies 110 Glen Street Glen Falls, New York 12801 Prepared By: CITY/SC"E: Cultural Resource Consultants 726 Carroll Street Brooklyn, New York 11215 October 2001 `I TTHACA WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights & Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT INFORMATION.................................................................1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION................................................2 III. DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH...........................:................................. (1) Site Files of New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation.......................................................................... 3 ■ (2) References......................................................................................... 8 a. Texts.....................:..................................................................8 ' b. Maps....................................................................................8 . (3) Previous Surveys..............................................................................13 (4) Sensitivity Assessment/Site Prediction..............................................13 1 Prehistoric Sensitivity ............................... :.............................. :.... 13 I-Estoric Sensitivity......................................................................16 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................17 Prehistoric Sensitivity..................................................................17 Historic Sensitivity.......................................................................17 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................:............................................................18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of the Project Area Appendix B: Maps & Figures Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Tables Table 3: Potential for Pump Station Location to Contain Prehistoric Sites Table 4: Potential for Project Area to Contain Archaeological Sites ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ITHACA WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York PART 1A: LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared by: Gail T. Guillet Affiliation: City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants 726 Carroll Street J ,,... Brooklyn, New York 11215 718-965-3860 October 11, 2001 -._ Date: . _ I. PROJECT INFORMATION Location of Proposed Action: The proposed project is located on the east side of Cayuga Lake north and east of the City of Ithaca. It encompasses the jurisdictions of several towns and villages, including the Town of Lansing, the Village of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York. (Map 1 & 2) More specifically the northwestern edge of the ' project area is located at the intersection of Beckwith Lane and Ridge Road (NYS Route 34B) in the Town of Lansing. It then extends south and west to Cayuga Lake west of the terminus of Piney Lane. The project area then extends south along the lake to the terminus of Bolton Point Road on the boundary between the Town and the Village of Lansing. The north edge of the project area is irregular, however, it includes properties north and south of Ludlowville ' Road, properties on Dug Road and Mill Street (both in the hamlet of Ludlowville), the south side of Brickyard Road to Wilson Road, the- south side of Wilson Road to Buck Road, and the north and south sides of Wilson Road between Buck Road and Conlon Road. At the intersection of Buck Road and Wilson Road the project area extends approximately'/4 mile northward to a line with Bower Road. From Conlon Road it follows the south side of Bower ' Road east to Auburn Road, then extends northward along the east side of Auburn Road as. far as the intersection of Buck Road, which runs north and then east through the Town of Lansing. The project area extends east along Buck Road for approximately 1 mile, then turns ' south to intersect Peruville Road. From this point the project area extends east along the south side of Peruville Road to the boundary line between the Town of Lansing and the Town of Dryden. The project area then extends southward along the town boundary to Snyder Road. From this point the project area runs west along the north side of Snyder Road to its ithacala City/Scape: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. 2 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. NY intersection with Warren Drive. It follows the west side of Warren Drive south to the intersection with Warren Road. The project area then runs west along the boundary between ' the Town of Lansing and the Village of Lansing to Bush Lane. It then follows the north side of the boundary line of the Town of Lansing westward to intersect with Cayuga Lake. A portion of the project are extends southward along East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34) to the sewer disposal plant in the Village of Cayuga Heights. Description of Undertaking: It is proposed to install sewer lines in areas not now served by sewer, including a number of new subdivisions. As part of this improvement program it will be necessary to install a number ' of pump stations. There are 10 of these pump stations (identified on Map 1 as 1-10). The pump stations are located along the west edge of the project area overlooking Cayuga Lake and in Ludlowville and the area surrounding it. IL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Topography: ' The project is located in the Finger Lake region of central New York in an area identified as part of the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau, and the topography of the area, including the Finger Lakes themselves, are in large part the direct result of the most recent Wisconsinan glaciation. The climate is currently temperate, with 45-50 growing days a year. Temperatures range from 22-24' Fahrenheit in January to 68-71' Fahrenheit in July. Rainfall varies from 32-36" with 16 ' to 18" of rain falling between May and September. Annually there is, on average, less than 40" of snow. In general, the topography of the proposed project area rises with varying degrees of steepness from Cayuga Lake eastward to the upland region. Salmon Creek and other streams in the area have cut into the landscape, creating narrow valleys with steep hillsides and in some places waterfalls. Besides Salmoh Creek, Swartz Creek, Townly Creek and Hedden Creeks flow westward into Cayuga Lake. All of these creeks are'tributaries of Salmon Creek. In many of the upland areas the landscape is gently rolling. Until recent times, the land was primarily used ' for agricultural purposes. The investigation of the project area indicates, however, that much of the land that was previously farmland is now being developed. r Geology: The bedrock of Tompkins County is limestone, black shale, sandstone and other shale bedrock (State of New York, 1969: Map 11). These rocks are used in the production of concrete, crushed stone products, both of which are industries that operate or have operated in the area, and in the manufacture of brick. One feature of the geology of the area is the presence of significant salt deposits that extend under Cayuga Lake. This deposit, discovered in the late 19a` century, has been mined from up to the present time. ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource .' Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 3 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY Soils: While noting the geology of the underlying bedrock, the soil deposits in the area are generally the result of glacial activity. They are predominantly gravelly and clayey loam. Shale outcrops are often located on the major slopes throughout the project area. Drainage: ' The overall drainage throughout the Towns of Lansing and Dryden is to Cayuga Lake on the western edge of the project area. Cayuga Lake, in turn, flows north into the Seneca River, which flows into the Oswego River. The Oswego River enters the south side of Lake Ontario at Oswego. Through Lake Ontario the project area is connected to the St. Lawrence River and, ultimately, to the Atlantic Ocean. At the north end of Cayuga Lake is Montezuma Swamp, a significant area for both local waterfowl and migrating birds. Vegetation: The project area contains a variety of vegetation, ranging from manicured lawns and exotic species to meadowland and mature woodland, consisting primarily of mixed broad-leaved deciduous trees with some evergreens. Much of the area is agricultural in nature,, with open fields being used as crop and pasture land. Forest Zone The project area lies within the Oak Northern Hardwood Forest zone (Thompson, 1977:92- 95). This is described as a transition zone, where oak and northern hardwoods intermingle. South facing slopes in this zone support stands of oak, while on northern slopes white pine, beech and maple are the predominant trees. Man-made Features and Alterations: The principal alterations to the area in which the proposed project will be located is the construction of dwellings and outbuildings associated with the farms that now and formerly occupied the area, the construction of the roadways to serve the communities and farms throughout the area, the construction of railroads that serve the area, and the development of industries, such as Cargill, Inc., along the banks of Cayuga Lake. III. DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH Site Files: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) National and/or State Register Initial research indicated that no properties listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places were located in the vicinity of the project area. ;, ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv i Anal sis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proect v p a Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins Countv. NY ' National Register eligible listing . No structures identified as National Register eligible but not yet included in the National Register of Historic Places have been identified within the project area. As part of the investigation of the Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Program for the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights, a visual survey of the structures located along the route of the proposed project was undertaken. Structures were grouped into several categories: 1) structures more than 50 years old possessing sufficient architectural integrity to be considered as individual structures for nomination to the National/State Register; 2) structures more than 50 years old possessing architectural qualities that, while not eligible as individual structures, appeared to meet the criteria for listing on the National/State Register, perhaps in the context of a small historic district (portions of Ludlowville) or multi -resource survey; 3) structures that were 50 years old, but lacked architectural qualities that would make them eligible for listing, 4) structures that were less than 50 years old. Structures that were more than 50 years old possessing architectural qualities that suggested eligibility for nomination to the National/State Register, either as individual structures or as part of a multi -resource survey, were photographed. These photographs are located in Appendix C. Building that were more than 50 years old, but lacked architectural qualities that would make them eligible for nomination, were not photographed. They were, for the most part, bungalows and ranch houses dating from the 1940's and 50's. Several bungalows dating to the 1920's are included in the photographs (Photo 112 & 113). The structures that are less than 50 years old include a significant number of houses associated with the subdivisions that are springing up throughout the project area. These buildings vary in age from those built in the 1960's to those that are still under construction. None of these buildings are eligible for the National/State Register and they were not photographed. It should be noted that none of the structures in the project area will, be impacted by the proposed project. State/National Register proposed No structures identified by the Office of Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as State/National Register eligible but not yet included in the State/National Register of Historic Places have been identified within the project area. Historic Archaeological Sites in General Vicinity of Project A review of the archaeological site files at the Office of Historic Preservation (OPRHP) indicate that a number of historic sites exist in the general vicinity of the project area. These sites are outlined below: ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stave IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 5 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. NY �f Li TABLE 1 Reported Historic Sites in Vicinity of Project Area OPRHP Sites Other Names Description Ithaca A10906.000214 Moore House Site Foundation and superstructure, c. 1817-1995. North of Fall Creek near dorms. A10906.0215 Forest Home Mill Hamlet of Forest Home. Originally Snyder's Mill. Site 1866. Dryden A10903.000243 Mosso Shop & West of NY 13. The site number includes structures House Site identified as A10903.000244 & A10903.000245 A10903.000244 Mosso Shop Site 191h century rural blacksmith shop. On George Rd. W of NY 13. A10903.000245 Mosso House Site c. 1898-1910. On NY 13 Al0903.000246 Rowland Site Historic period occupation. c. 1853. On NY 13. Although it is not reported in the OPRHP site files, there are a number of industrial sites on Salmon Creek in Ludlowville, including an early mill and tannery. Undoubtedly there are other historic archaeological sites that have not been surveyed and, therefore, are not included on the OPRHP list. A number of these sites are discussed below and identified in Table 4. New York State Museum and OPRHP Archaeological Site Files A review of the archaeological site files at the Office of Historic Preservation (OPRHP), which now include the files formerly located at the New York State Museum (NYSM), indicate that a �I number of prehistoric sites exist in the Town of Lansing and in surrounding areas. With the LJ exception of the area around Ludlowville, where a number of sites are reported (Personal communication, September 2001), none of the OPRHP sites are directly associated with the proposed route of the wasterwater improvement program. The reported prehistoric sites in the general vicinity of the proposed route are outlined in Table 2 and those in the project area are included in Table 4. While no sites are reported in the immediate vicinity of the proposed route, the environmental model utilized by the OPRHP would suggest that there are areas along the proposed route that contains terrain "similar to terrain in the general vicinity where recorded archaeological sites are indicated," and, furthermore, possess physiographic characteristics suggesting "a high probability of prehistoric occupation or use." Although village sites are reported around ' Cayuga Lake (See Fig. 1 & 4), based on the topography and environmental conditions along 1 ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 6 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY much of the proposed route of the project, it is most likely that the type of cultural material recovered would be related to use of the area as short term, special use (for example, nutting stations) or still -hunting camps. In addition, two burial sites are reported that may be -within- the project area. One of these is a Parker site (NYSM #5019); the other, not included in the OPRHP files, is identified as the Moravec Burial Site, which is located on Farrell Road east of Warren Road. The environmental model developed by the New York State Museum takes the following factors into consideration: • the location of the project area overlooking Cayuga Lake, a well known prehistoric resource; • the presence of several streams that flow westward into Cayuga Lake, one of which is called Salmon Creek. Th streams in the area could have provided prehistoric peoples with fresh water, as well fishing opportunities. The streams also attracted game to the area; • and the presence of recorded prehistoric site in the vicinity on terrain that is similar to that found within the project area. Native Americans heavily utilized Cayuga Lake and its tributaries and the density of sites in the general vicinity is high. No fewer than 18 sites are recorded in the New York State Museum and OPRHP lists for the area. The reported sites in the general vicinity of the project are outlined below: TABLE 2 Reported Prehistoric Sites in Vicinity of Project Area OPRHP Sites NYSM Sites Other Names Description Ithaca A109-06-0001 Cowell Site No diagnostics. Flakes and flake fragments. Angular spalls. PAF/SUNY Binghamton, 1983 A109-06-0087 Brown Farm Archaic. Single bifurcate base. On Site Fall Creek 3 miles NE of Ithaca. A10906.000215 In association with Moore House relocation investigation, 1998. A109-06-0016001 Associated with Moore House site. W of A10906.000215 5019 Unidentified prehistoric site. W of Hillcrest Rd. Near Terpening Corners. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource fl .1 .1 n .1 I � 1 Stage I Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 7 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY OPRHP Sites NYSM Sites Other Names I Description 3750.81 Prehistoric site. On Fall Creek near Snyder Rd. Town of Lansing A109-07-0001 Owasco village site. 5 miles NE of Ithaca. PARSUNY Binghamton A109-07-0003 Historic Indian village top of Esty Hill (Route 34). PAF/SUNY Binghamton 1977 - A109-07-0004 5801 Campsite (Cayuga?). Ludlowville. also .000004 W side Brickyard Rd. On Salmon Creek. PAF/SUNY Binghamton, 1977 A109-07-0006 Burial at Myers. W of Rt. 34. 0.4m N/600' E of Salmon Creek At 500' amsl, flat. PAF/SUNY Binghamton, 1977 A109-0709998 Ludlow Road Near Lansing Station between Sweazy. . Site Rd. & Lansing Station Rd. 5019 ACP TOMP 02 Burial site. Ludlowville. "on Fay Townley Farm near Village of S. Lansing. Near Minnegar Brook. 274- 283 amsl. Gentle slope. Parker, 1920. 5034 ACP TOMP Traces of occupation. At Portland Pt. No number Large area along lake from Portland - Pt. north to SE of Myers. No further information. Town of Dryden I A10903.000178 I Stray find. Dense lithic scatter. 1992 A10903.000243 10494 The Plus Site Archaic -Late Woodland/Iroquoian component. 1 pc. Pottery. High degree of integrity. Determined NR eligible. PAF/SUNY Binghamton, 1997 7465 Dryden 3 Dense lithic scatter on PZ surface (knapping station). Sarah Majot, 1992 7464 Dryden 2 Lithic scatter on PZ surface. Sarah Majot, 1992. 5033 ACP TOMP Traces of occupation. No further No number information. ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource 1 Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Imurovement Proiect. 8 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY 2. References (Sources marked in the listing below have been examined for prehistoric sites in the vicinity of the project area.) a. Texts X Beauchamp, William 1900 Aboriginal Occupation of Neiv York. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 32. Albany, NY. X Parker, Arthur 1922 The Archaeological History of Neip York. New York State Museum Bulletin. No. 237 & 238. Albany, NY. X . Preservation League of New York State (Compiled by Peter D. Shaver) 1993 The National Register of Historic Places in New York State. Rizzoli: New York, NY. X Ritchie, William A. 1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press: Garden City, NY. X Ritchie, William A. & Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York State Museum and Science Service. Albany, NY. X Snow, Dean R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York, NY. X Other (See attached Bibliography) b. Maps X Burr, David H. 1829 Map of the County of Tompkins. (Map 5) The maps indicate the towns within the Military Tract (See Map 4) that are included in Tompkins County. These townships were then divided into 600 acre lots, which were numbered. The lots and some of the numbers are included on the map. At the time that Burr produced this map Ludlowville was the only village in the Town of Lansing. Although it is known that there were mills on Salmon Creek at Ludlowville, no mill sites are identified in the Town of Lansing. At the south end of Cayuga Lake was Ithaca. Here, and east along Falls Creek, there are a number of mill sites, indicated by diamond shapes. Also at the south end of the lake is the hamlet of Renwick. It was here that an important spring, known as Indian Spring, was located. Salmon Creek is the only stream identified, but the map makes it clear that numerous streams flowed into Cayuga Lake from both the east and the west. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 9 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY X Fagan, L. 1853 Map of Tompkins Cb nnty, N. Y. Library of Congress Landownership Maps 0558, New York, Tompkins. [Repository: NYPL Map Room] (Map 6A-C) Northwest of Ludlowville (on Ridge Road) was an area identified in the early 19`h century as Fiddler's Green. The Sperry family lived in this area (Sperry Lane commemorates their ownership of the surrounding farms). Research indicates that Tooker's store, a post office and a schoolhouse were located in Fiddler's Green. (Photo 6 & 106) At the intersection of Ridge Road and the west side of the highway (at the upper part of the Ludlowville Road) was a farm owned by J. Carmen. Across the highway was another farm owned by C. Townley (alternatively Townly). Looking southwest to the hamlet of Myers (then called Myers Landing) there were two mills, one identified as a saw mill, on Salmon Creek. L. Myers was located at Myers Landing. At this time the shoreline of the lake was a short distance west of the railroad tracks, the land west of the railroad being a man-made peninsula. Returning to Ludlowville, which was the principal village in the Town of Lansing throughout the 19s' century, there was a church located on the western edge of the village. (Map 6A & 6C) This was the Methodist Meeting House, which was moved to another location south of the brick commercial block, some time during the 19`h century. (Photo 24 & 25) There was a hotel on the southwest corner of the intersection of Ludlowville Road and Mill Street. On the southern portion of Ludlowville Road there was a school (set back from the highway) and a carriage shop. .On Maple Avenue there was a Paint Manufactory and a Carriage Factory. The store operated by Burr & Co. was located- on the north side of the Ludlowville Road where it intersected with Mill Street. Dr. Matson's Mill was also there. D. Burr occupied the house on the northeast corner of Ludlowville Road and Salmon Creek Road (Photo 28). Next to him was Dr. C. P. Falin. Dug Road extended north across Salmon Creek beyond its present limit. On Dug Road, running on the north side of Townley Creek, there were several farms owned by the Townley family, one of which was the farm of J. A. Townley, another the farm of J. N. Townley. One of these farms may be the location of the burial site identified by Parker (See Fig..1). Mill Street did not exist, but a Paint Mill owned by Dr. Matson was located on Salmon Creek in the vicinity of Mill Street's terminus. North of the village, on the east side of Salmon Creek Road, was a tannery. Further north was an area identified as "Indian Chimney." One of the villages of the Cayuga was located between Ludlowville and Lansingville. On the south portion of Ludlowville Road was the Presbyterian Church (set back from the highway), the parsonages for both the Presbyterian and the Methodist clergy, and the house of Dr. Barr, identified as a Homeopathist. At the point where the highway crossed Salmon. Creek as a Smith Shop. The land south of Salmon Creek was owned by S. W. Clark. In 1853 Ridge Road did not exist between the west end of Ludlowville Road and its south end, where the road jointed the Myers Road. Then, as today, Myers Road forms a loop connecting at both ends with Ridge Road. From this intersection Ludlowville Road (now Ridge Road) ran to Libertyville (now South Lansing), with one road ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. ]0 Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY running southwest from Ridge Road to Norton's Landing and then south along the lake to Yiplin's Point, later Portland Point. (Photo 65-67) In addition to the dock there was a lime kiln and storage buildings owned by Drake & Conover. Gulf Creek, which rose east of Asbury, entered Cayuga Lake at this point. Continuing south along Ridge Road, Libertyville was a small hamlet consisting of several houses (Photo 79, 84, & 86), a schoolhouse (Photo 82), a store, and the Central Exchange Hotel (Photo 83). South of Libertyville the road is now known as East Shore Drive. Following East Shore Drive to Atwater Road brings you to Asbury. Asbury is not identified as a hamlet on the 1853 map, but histories indicate that it was .a station stop on the Lake Ontario, Auburn & New York Railroad. Moving east along Asbury Road, named for the Asbury Methodist Meeting House, there were five saw mills, a cider mill, and a shoe shop. There was also the meeting house (then located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Asbury Road and North Triphammer Road) and a cemetery (Photo 87). Several dwellings were also clustered around this intersection. (Photo 88) Immediately south of the intersection of East Shore Road and Asbury Road were j s several farms owned by the Teeter and Bloom families. Marking the demarcation between the Teeter and Bloom farms was Waterwagon Road.. South of Waterwagon Road on the west side of the highway was Schoolhouse No. 15. Today the area of Forest City is not recognizable as a hamlet area, but in the 19`h century it was the location of Dr. John F. Burdick's Water Cure and Ladies Seminary. The Burdick dwelling is standing (Photo 122 & Fig. 8), but the seminary buildings are gone (Fig. 9). Looking east from East Shore Drive at Burdick Hill Road there was a "Choice Orchard" at the intersection with North Triphammer Road. A short distance north was a Smith Shop, while just south of Asbury, also on the west side of North Triphammer —� Road there was a Carpenter Shop owned by J. C. Egbert. The remaining area south of Asbury and east of,North Triphammer Road was farmland. No hamlet areas or industrial developments are noted. South of Burdick Road to the boundary with the Town of Ithaca it was also farms. Immediately south of the boundary on East Shore Drive there was a Plaster Mill. South of the Plaster Mill was a Dry dock. At Renwick, i then a hamlet area, there was a school and the "Indian Spring." It appears that this was another "water cure", in this case operated by R. J. Renwick. X Stone & Stewart. 1866 Map of Tompkins County, N. Y. Library of Congress Landownership Maps 0558, New York, Tompkins. (Map 7A-C) Northwest of Ludlowville (on Ridge Road) was an area identified in the early 19`h century as Fiddler's Green. In 1866 the Sperry family continued to live in this area (Sperry Lane commemorates their ownership of the surrounding farms). At the intersection of Ridge Road and the west side of the highway (at the upper -part of the ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 11 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins County, NY Ludlowville Road) was a farm that had been owned by J. Carmen in 1853, but was now owned by W. W. Clark. Looking southwest to the hamlet of Myers (then called Myers Landing) there were two mills on Salmon Creek, one identified as a saw mill, the other as a grist mill. H. Myers was located at Myers Landing, where there were now storehouses. Returning to Ludlowville, the Methodist Meeting House had not yet been moved. J. A. Burr occupied the house on the northeast corner of Ludlowville Road and Salmon Creek Road. There was still a hotel on the southwest corner of the intersection of Ludlowville Road and Mill Street. In 1866 it was operated by W. Seeley. The store operated by Burr & Co. was now operated by Lord & Burr. On Ludlowville Road south of the intersection with Mill Street (now in existence), on the east side of the highway there was a Store House and a Cabinet Shop. Mrs. Stewart lived at the corner, Dr. Barr still lived in the dwelling he had occupied in 1853. On the west side of the highway there was series of attached structures occupied as residences and stores, including a Tailor, a Harness Shop, and Mason Bros. Store. The Session House was behind these buildings. South of these buildings was a street leading to the Presbyterian Church and the schoolhouse. The parsonages of the Presbyterians and the Methodists were on the west side of the highway south of this street. On the east side of Maple Avenue at Ludlowville Road there was a shop behind the dwelling of D. Kent. Where Maple Avenue curved there was another shop and beyond that the Carriage Factory. The Paint Manufactory was now gone, as was the Matson Mill on Mill Street. Several dwellings were located on Mill Street, including one owned by Mrs. Nelson (Photo 16) and W. Beyer (Photo 15). Dug Road extended north across Salmon Creek, as it did in 1853. In the area of the park in Ludlowville was a lane that gave access to the Grist Mill and Spoke Factory. The Saw Mill was east of these two structures. Salmon Creek had been dammed, creating a mill pond north of the falls. The stream was diverted from the main channel to serve these mills. On the east side of the lane to the mills was a Blacksmith Shop. There was another Blacksmith Shop south of the intersection of Ludlowville Road and Maple Avenue. North of the village, on the east side of Salmon Creek Road, was a tannery. Further north was an area identified as "Indian Chimney." One of the villages of the Cayuga was located between Ludlowville and Lansingville. On the south portion of Ludlowville Road was the Presbyterian Church (set back from the highway), the parsonages for both the Presbyterian and the Methodist clergy, and the house of Dr. Barr, identified as a Homeopathist. At the point where the highway crossed Salmon Creek as a Smith Shop. The land south of Salmon Creek was owned by S. W. Clark. In 1853 Ridge Road did not exist between the west end of Ludlowville Road and its south end, where the road jointed the Myers Road. Then, as today, Myers Road forms a loop connecting at both ends with Ridge Road. From this intersection Ludlowville Road (now Ridge Road) ran to Libertyville (now South Lansing), with one road running southwest from Ridge Road to Norton's Landing and then south along the lake to Kiplin's Point, later Portland Point. (Photo 65-67) In addition to the dock there was ', ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage lA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 12 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY ' a lime kiln and storage buildings owned by Drake & Conover. Gulf Creek, which rose east of Asbury, entered_ Cayuga Lake at this point. Continuing south along Ridge Road, Libertyville was a small hamlet consisting of _ several houses (Photo 79, 84, & 86), a schoolhouse (Photo 82), a store, and the Central Exchange Hotel (Photo 83). South of Libertyville the road is now known as East Shore Drive. Following East Shore Drive to Atwater Road brings you to Asbury. Asbury is not identified as a hamlet on the 1853 map, but histories indicate that it was a station stop on the Lake Ontario, Auburn & New York Railroad. Moving east along Asbury Road, named for ' the Asbury Methodist Meeting House, there were five saw mills, a cider mill, and a shoe shop. There was also the meeting house (then located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Asbury Road and North Triphammer Road) and a cemetery (Photo intersection. 88) " 87). Several dwellings were also clustered around this (Photo Immediately south of the intersection of East Shore Road and Asbury Road were several farms owned by the Teeter and Bloom families. Marking the demarcation between the Teeter and Bloom farms was Waterwagon Road. South of Waterwagon Road on the west side of the highway was Schoolhouse No. 15. Today the area of Forest City is not recognizable as a hamlet area, but in the 19"' century it was the location of Dr. John F. Burdick's Water Cure and Ladies Seminary. The Burdick dwelling is standing (Photo 122 & Fig. 8), but the.seminary buildings are gone (Fig. 9). Looking east from East Shore Drive at Burdick Hill Road there was a "Choice Orchard" at the intersection with North Triphammer Road. A short distance north was a Smith Shop, while just south of Asbury, also on the west side of North Triphammer Road there was a Carpenter Shop owned by J. C. Egbert. The remaining area south of Asbury and east of North Triphammer Road was farmland. No hamlet areas or industrial developments are noted. South of Burdick Road to the boundary with the Town of Ithaca it was also farms. Immediately south of the boundary on East Shore Drive there was a Plaster Mill. South of the Plaster Mill was a Dry dock. At Renwick, then a hamlet area, there was a school and the "Indian Spring." It appears that this was another "water cure", in this case operated by R. J. Renwick. Unites States Geological Survey Maps 1985 USGS Topographical Maps. 7.5 Minute Series. United States Geological Survey: Washington, D.C. Scale: 1:24,000. Maps examined included: Ithaca East Quad, Ithaca West Quad, Dryden Quad, Ludlowville Quad, Groton Quad and West Groton Quad. ;`' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage 1A Literature Review and Sensitivityfor Ithaca Anal sis v Wastewater Improvement Project. 13 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY 3. Previous Surveys Surveys completed in the general area: Oberon; Stephen ' 1979 Stage 1 Cultural Resource Survey, Village of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York Prepared for Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Limited Report No. SA1-8-79. Public Archaeology Facility (SUNY Binghamton) 1997 Cultural Resource Survey 1997-1998 Highway Program. Addendum. Reconnaissance Survey. PIN 3057. 36.121 Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York. MCD 10903. 97PR1085. Public Archaeology Facility (SUNY Binghamton) } 1997 Stage I Archaeological Reconnaissance. Portland Point Development Project, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility (SUNY Binghamton) 1997 Stage IA & IB Archaeological Survey, Cayuga Lake Source Cooling Project City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing. Tompkins County, NY. Nagel, Brian L. & Paul Powers ' 1998 Investigations for Two Parcels on Cornell University Property for Possible Use in Relocating the Moore House as Part of the Cornell University/North Campus Residential Housing Initiative. Village of Cayuga Heights, Hamlet of Forest Home, and Town of Ithaca.. Tompkins County, NY. MYOPRHP # 98PR3404. RMSCIRHPP PIN 99.28.. For Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Ithaca, NY. Public Archaeology Facility (SUNY Binghamton) 2001 Report on Field Reconnaissance Stage 1 Cultural Resource Survey. Lansing Water Project. To*n of Lansing. Tompkins County, NY. MCD 10907. 01PR0494, OIPR0495, OIPR0496 For T. G. Miller, PC, Ithaca, NY. 4. Sensitivity Assessment/Site Prediction Prehistoric Sensitivitv The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the New York State Museum Prehistoric Site Files (now housed at OPRHP) identified a number of prehistoric resources located either on or in close proximity to or in the general vicinity of the project area. (Table 2, Fig. 1 & 10) Several are located in terrain that is similar to that, found within the project area. Most of the identified prehistoric sites are focused on Cayuga Lake, Salmon Creek or one of the other streams that flow through the project area, but two burial sites appear not to adhere to this pattern. ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Protect. 14 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY In assessing the potential of various locations within the project area to contain prehistoric cultural resources, a number of factors were taken into consideration, including the proximity to fresh water sources, well drained soils, natural resources, raw materials, and transportation routes, the density or recorded sites in the area and the extent of disturbance (NYAC; 1994:2). Based on the criteria described above, the entire project area must be considered sensitive with respect to prehistoric cultural resources. The project area lies within the Cayuga Lake -Salmon Creek drainage, both of which .are identified with prehistoric activity. It connects, through the Seneca River and Oswego River, with Lake Ontario, all of which provided transportation routes for Native Americans. Additionally, the tributaries of Salmon Creek and other smaller streams served as corridors into upland areas, giving access to a wide variety of natural resources utilized by prehistoric peoples. In 1995, Dean Snow, then associated with SUNY Albany, undertook a drainage study of the Mohawk River watershed that concluded that while the larger tributaries of the Mohawk River were heavily utilized, the smaller watersheds and headwaters in Schenectady and Saratoga County were also widely used, as were the flat terraces that overlooked them. This study has importance for our investigation, since the network of streams throughout the area is vast and the findings in an area that connects, though tangentially, with ours may help us to understand the indigenous land use patterns in the project area. Paleo-Indian projectile points have been found south and north of the project area, usually within the strandline of proglacial Lake Iroquois. Archaic and Woodland sites have been identified within the boundaries of the project area. Overall the density of prehistoric sites, particularly along Cayuga Lake and Salmon Creek, is extremely high. Site types reported include village sites, camp sites, burial sites, and scattered traces of occupation. Their topographical distribution ranges from floodplains to upland plateaus. Among the types of sites anticipated would be occupation sites (temporary camps or sedentary villages), natural resource procurement sites (quarries, fish weirs, kill sites, agricultural fields, etc.), production/processing sites (lithic workshops, kill sites, kilns, etc.), and burial/religious sites (burials, sweat lodges, mounds, petroglyphs, etc.). Elevated well -drained plateaus and terraces, such as those that are located throughout the project area, have been found to be the location of temporary seasonal camps and more sedentary occupations. Usually these sites are located near a spring or stream. Few wetland areas were identified, but it may be noted that those wetlands that exist within the project area would have provided prehistoric peoples with a variety of resources that might have attracted them. Slopes throughout the project area are, with the exception of the edges of the streams, mostly gentle and the soil is generally well drained. Both of these criteria are additional environmental conditions that contribute to a determination that the project area must be considered potentially sensitive for prehistoric cultural resources. Finally, based on environmental models proposed by the New York State Museum, it is concluded that "the terrain in the location is similar to terrain in the general vicinity where recorded archaeological sites are indicated," and "the physiographic character of the location suggest a moderate to high probability of prehistoric occupation or use." Undisturbed areas within the project area must, therefore, be considered to possess the potential to contain a prehistoric site or sites. The rationale on ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. 15 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY which the model is based considers the following: slope, drainage, soil types, elevation, and relationship to a source of fresh water. Prehistoric Sensitivity, Sensitivity Level Definition High Well drained level areas (0-10% slopes) located on large landforms with distinctive topographical relief and well drained soils within 250' of a known (or relict) water source or spring head. Moderate Areas with moderate slopes (10-15% slopes) having soils that are well drained to seasonally well drained and within 250' to 1000' of a water source. Low Areas with slopes greater than 15%, previously disturbed soils by man-made construction activities, or on soils with permanent high water perch levels. These criteria were taken into consideration when assessing the project area, but, in addition, the level of disturbance found along the route of the proposed Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project was also examined. It was found that within the project ere are many areas located along the edges of highways. While these areas may not be ruled out entirely, it should be noted that where water lines, drainage culverts and other infrastructure have been installed, the potential of the area to contain intact prehistoric areas is greatly reduced. Most of these areas would be considered to have a moderate to low potential for prehistoric cultural resources. In contrast, there are places where the sewer line runs along the rear of property lines or across open land that was formerly used for agricultural purposed. These areas are relatively undisturbed, and in those locations the potential for prehistoric sites must be . considered high, unless there are mitigating factors, such as steep slopes or some significant level of disturbance. Areas that may be considered to have a low potential include areas that have been mined for gravel or that have been substantially altered by road construction. The potential for the proposed project area to contain prehistoric cultural resources has been examined in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 specifically examines the potential of each of the Pump Station sites (identified as Pump Station No. 1-10) to contain prehistoric resources, commenting on the rationale for the assessment. Table 4 looks at the potential of the entire project area to contain either historic or prehistoric cultural resources. To maintain some control over this process, the project area was broken down into a number of areas that vary in size (identified as Area AN). The areas are further defined by identifying the boundaries using the present street/road/highway names. Within each of these smaller areas the potential for archaeological sites to be present is identified and described. Table 4 also includes reported prehistoric sites located in the project area. These notations have been inserted in the general area in which they are thought to be located. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource ' nsitivi Anal �sis for Ithaca Stave IA Literature Review and Se tv v t aca Wastewater Improvement Protect. 16 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. NY Historic Sensitivitv An examination of historic maps of the area and a literature search indicates that several historic archaeological structures may be located within the proposed project area. These are primarily foundations associated with early commercial development, including null sites, schoolhouses, and, occasionally, a shop or dwelling. No standing historic archaeological sites were noted. No historic archaeological sites are listed by OPRBP for the project area. As indicated above, the historic archaeological potential of the proposed project area is examined in Table 4. Within each of the areas (identified as Area A V) potential historic archaeological sites were identified. It is likely that most of the sites identified no longer exist, having been impacted by highway construction. As part of our investigation the structures located along the route of the proposed project were examined and photographed. The criteria used in selecting the structures to be photographed is reiterated here: 1. structures more than 50 years old possessing sufficient architectural integrity to:be considered as individual structures for nomination to the National/State Register; 2. structures more than 50 years old possessing architectural qualities that, while not ' eligible as individual structures, appeared to meet the criteria for listing on the National/State Register, perhaps in the context of a small historic district (portions of Ludlowville) or multi -resource survey; 3. structures that were 50 years old, but lacked architectural qualities that would make them eligible for listing, 4. structures that were less than 50 years old. .�i Structures that were more than 50 years old possessing architectural qualities*that suggested eligibility for nomination to the National/State Register, either as individual structures or as part of a multi -resource survey, were photographed. Building that were more than 50 years old, but lacked architectural qualities that would make them eligible for nomination, were not photographed: They were, for the most part, bungalows and ranch houses dating from the i 1940's and 50's. Several- bungalows dating to the 1920's are included in the photographs C� (Photo 112 & 113). The structures that are less than 50 years old include a significant number of houses associated with the subdivisions that are springing up throughout the project area. These buildings vary in age from those built in the 1960's*to those that are still under construction. None of these buildings are eligible for the National/State Register and they were not photographed. Photographs of many of the structures in the proposed project area are included in Appendix C. In the course of the examination of the buildings in the project area it became clear that there was a Greek Revival dwelling -type that, while likely based on a 19a' century pattern book, ' seemed characteristic of many of the farmhouses of the Town of Lansing, and, perhaps, of Tompkins County. Often the building was L-shaped, with one part of the house, usually with the gable end to the highway being decorated by an entablature, piers with capitals, heavy ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. 17 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY moldings around the windows and doors, and a porch supported by columns; the other part of the house, usually featuring eyebrow windows in the attic story, was perpendicular to the gable end of the house. Sometimes the eyebrow windows were decorated with wrought iron grills. Sometimes portions of the porch had been enclosed. Occasionally a Victorian bay window or porch elaborately decorated with gingerbread had been added. Many of the houses had additions, some of them more sympathetic than others. The Benson Buck House, which typifies many of the characteristics of this particular Greek Revival style house, was located in East Lansing — an area that is difficult to identify with certainty, but appears to have been located on Peruville Road near the eastern boundary of the Town of Lansing. (See Fig. 5 & 6) The Wyckoff House is another example, but it is included here merely to suggest the layout of a farmstead in the Town of Lansing. (See Fig. 7) Few of these farmsteads remain. The Wyckoff family were early settlers of Brooklyn, and this may be one of the reasons the barn on their farm appears to have a Dutch "kick" to the roof. Other examples of the type are seen in . Appendix C: Photo 31, 95, 97-100, 102-3, 114, 120 (very nice examples); 23, 39, 40-41, 70, 79, 89, 91 (good examples); 75, 84, 90, 119 (deteriorated examples). It should be noted that none of the structures in the study area a will be impacted by the proposed Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Prehistoric Sensitivity It is recommended that, except in areas where clear disturbance can be documented, such as at Myers and Portland Point, the entire project area must be considered sensitive for prehistoric cultural resources. Obviously, areas that are along the roadways may have been impacted by road construction, road widening projects, the installations of drainage and water. lines (new installed in several areas), lessening the level of sensitivity, but experience has demonstrated that a field reconnaissance survey along the proposed routes of sewer installations can aid in an understanding of the broad range of activities that were engaged in and areas that may have been utilized by indigenous people. The project area has been assessed and levels of sensitivity reported in Table 4. Reported sites in the project area are included in Table 4, as well as in this document (See Table 2). Table 3 specifically identifies the levels of sensitivity for the ten Pump Station locations. Historic Sensitivity Map research and an examination of the project area indicates that there are several historic archaeological sites in the project area. These are primarily mill sites, schoolhouse sites, and an occasional shop or store. No standing historic archaeological sites were noted. The historic sites are located along the highways in the project area, and an investigation of them can be undertaken by the same field reconnaissance survey that investigates the potential prehistoric resources. No historic structures either listed on the State or National Register of Historic Place are located in the project area. No structures. eligible for such listing, but not yet nominated were ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. is Town of Lansina. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY noted. No structures that would be eligible for nomination as individual structures exist in the project area. Photographs of many of the buildings in the project area are included in Appendix C. V. ATTACHMENTS X Location Map (Appendix B: Map 1 & 2) X Archaeological Sites Map (Appendix B: Fig. 1 & 10) X Historic maps (Appendix B: Map 3-7) X Photographs (Appendix C) X Architectural Assessment of Buildings in Vicinity of Project Area (Appendix C) End of 1A Li ithacala CITYISCAPE: Cultural Resource F, I Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. .19 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States in Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, 163-216. Beauchamp, William 1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. In Bulletin of the New York State Museum, vol. 7, No. 32.. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY. Burr, David 1829 Map of the County of Tompkins. Stone & Stewart: Philadelphia, PA. Chilton, Elizabeth 1998 The Cultural Origins of Technical Choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian 1 Ceramic Tradition in the Northeast in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Marian T. Stark, ed. Washington [D.C.]: Smithsonian Institution Press. `] Cronon, William 1983 Changes in the Land Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang: New York. Dickmann Jane Marsh . c.1986 A Short History of Tompkins County. DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY. Disturnell. J. 1843 A Gazetteer of the State of New York. C. Van Benthuysen: Albany, NY. Dixon, E. James 1999 Boats, Bones & Bisons. Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. The University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM. Eisenberg, Leonard r 1978 Paleo-indian Settlement Patterns in the Hudson and Delaware Drainages: Man in the Northeast, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology. No 4. Fagan, Brian M. 1991 Ancient North America. Thames and Hudson: New York, NY. Fiedel, Stuart J. 1990 Middle Woodland Algonquian Expansion: A Refined Model. North American: Archaeologist 11 (3): 209-230. Fogelman, Gary'L. 1988 A Projectile Point Typologyfor Pennsylvania and the Northeast. Fogelman Publishing Company: Turbotville, PA. French, J. H. 1860 Gazetteer of New -York State. Heart of the Lakes Publishing: Interlaken, NY. [reprinted 1981] '' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 20 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins Countv, NY Funk, Robert E. 1965 The Archaic of the Hudson Valley: New Evidence and New Interpretations. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3 5 (34):13 9-160. 1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York. State Museum Memoir 22. Albany, NY. Goodrich, George B. 1898 The Centennial History of the Town of Dryden, 1797-1897. J. Giles Ford, Printer: Dryden, NY. Guillet, Gail 2000 Identification and Analysis of Pottery Bearing Sites in Dutchess County (New York). Paper prepared for Rita Wright, NYU. Kammen, Carol 1985 The Peopling of Tompkins County. A Social History. Heart of the Lakes Publications: Interlaken, NY. Lee, H. C. 1977 History of Railroads in Tompkins County Revised and enlarged by Winton Riossiter Dewitt Historical Society of Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY. McAdam, D. R. 1970 "The Sullivan Expedition: Successor Failure." The New York Historical Society Quarterly. Vol. LIV (1): 53-81. Nagel, Brian L. & Paul Powers 1998 Investigations for Two Parcels on Cornell University Property for Possible Use in Relocating the Moore House as Part of the Cornell University/North Campus Residential Housing Initiative. Village of Cayuga Heights, Hamlet of Forest Home, and Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, NY. MYOPRHP #98PR3404. RMSCIRHPP PIN 99.28. For Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Ithaca, NY. Norris, W. Glen -I 1944 Old Indian Trails in Tompkins County. Dewitt Historical Society of Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY. Oberon, S. 1979 Stage 1 Cultural Resource Survey, Village of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York. (—� Prepared for Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Limited Report No. SA1-8-79. . Parker,. Arthur 1920 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin. No. 237 and 238. The University of the State of New York: Albany, NY. Parish, I. 1964 It Happened in Lansing. Dewitt Historical Society of Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY. 1967 This Too Happened in Lansing. Dewitt Historical Society of Tompkins County: Ithaca, NY. Pierce, H. S. And D. H. Hurd 1879 History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins and Schuyler Counties, New York. Everts and ' Ensign: Philadelphia, PA. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource �J f.1 1 Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. 21 Town of Lansing_ Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY Public Archaeology Facility (SUNY Binghamton) 1997a Cultural Resource Survey 1997-1998 Highway Program. Addendum. Reconnaissance Survey. PIN 3057.36.121 Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York. MCD 10903. 97PR1085. 1997b Stage I Archaeological Reconnaissance. Portland Point Development Project, Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York. 1997c Stage IA & IB Archaeological Survey, Cayuga Lake Source Cooling Project, City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing. Tompkins County, NY. 2001 Report on Field Reconnaissance Stage I Cultural Resource Survey. Lansing Water Project. Town of Lansing. Tompkins County, NY. MCD 10907. OIPR0494, OIPR0495, OIPR0496. For T G. Miller, PC, Ithaca, NY. Ritchie, William A. 1989 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Bulletin No. 3 84. New York State Museum: Albany, NY. 1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, NY. [Reprint of 1969 edition] 1944 The Pre Iroquoian Occupation of New York State. Memoir 1. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences. Rochester, NY. Ritchie, William A. and -Funk, Robert E. 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York State Museum and Science Service: Albany, NY. Selkreg, John H. 1894 Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York. D. Mason & Co.: Syracuse, NY. Smith, Bruce D. 1995 The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library: New York, NY. Snow, Dean R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York, NY. Spofford, Horatio Gates 1825 A Gazetteer of the State of New York. R. Pearsall Smith: Syracuse, NY. Reprint by Heart of the Lakes; Interlaken, NY. Stone & Stewart 1866 New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York. Stone & Stewart: Philadelphia, NY. United States Department of the Interior. 1985 National Register Bulletin # 24: Technical Information on Comprehensive Planning, Survey of Cultural Resources, and Registration in the National Register of Historic Places. Reprint. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. Wellman, Beth 1982 A Survey of New York Fluted Points. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:39-40. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 itliacala. I] "PENDICES CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants LIST OF APPENDICES j Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of the Project Area 1 Appendix B: Maps & Figures .F Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Tables Table 3: Potential for Pump Station Locations to Contain Prehistoric Sites Table 4: Potential for Project Area to Contain Archaeological Sites '' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants APPENDIX A PREHISTORIC & HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AREA 3 ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ' PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF'1'HN: PROJECT AREA Prehistoric Overview of Tompkins County The Finger Lakes, including Cayuga Lake, are extremely rich in terms' of archaeological resources ranging from the Paleo-Indian to the historic period. The reasons for this are several, among them the very nature of the Finger Lakes, long, narrow bodies of .�; water, that act as magnets for local fauna and migrating species. An additional resource is Montezuma Swamp, a remnant of proglacial Lake Iroquois, which extends north of Cayuga Lake. The Seneca River, which flows out of Cayuga Lake, provides'easy access to the IFOswego River, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence and, ultimately, the Atlantic Ocean. The Paleo-Indian Stage ■ As the first native Americans, indeed the first humans, entered the area during the _ Paleo-Indian period more than 12,000 �years ago, their logical route would be along the rivers i and streams that provided access to the interior. Ritchie identifies several routes into New York: one that follows the Susquehanna and Delaware River systems, another up the Ohio and Allegheny into southwestern New York, a third up the Hudson River Valley into eastern New York State, and a fourth along the now inundated Atlantic coast onto Long Island and into New England (Ritchie, 1980:7). Paleo-Indian points have been found at the south end of Cayuga Lake, just south of a lobe of proglacial Lake Iroquois, which extended over much of the area that includes Tompkins County (Ritchie, 1980:Fig. 2 & Materials Investigation, Inc, 1982:9). Not only humans, but also the post Pleistocene megafauna would be drawn to this region, including mastodon, the remains of which has been found in the Town of Lansing (Ritchie, 1980:Fig. 3 & Materials Investigation, Inc, 1982:9). As the great ice sheets began to retreat from the Northeast both the hunter, the.Paleo-Indian, and the hunted began to'move into this region. The date `of man's arrival in the Northeast is currently a matter of heated. debate; scholars had believed that man could not have been present much before 9000 BC, but investigations at sites like Cactus Hill suggest that man was in the eastern United States by at least 15,000 years ago, and, further, that environmental conditions would not have prevented Paleo-Indians from exploiting habitats northward into Pennsylvania and southern New York State. More recent investigations suggest that the area that includes Tompkins County might I have been available by 11,000 BC and perhaps earlier. Paleo-Indians, as these small bands of nomadic hunter -gatherers are called by archaeologists, appear to have entered the previously uninhabited Northeast from the south and west. Their sites, identified primarily by characteristically fluted points, are found all over North America. As noted above, Paleo-Indian points and other artifacts have been found at the south end of Lake Cayuga, and there is a concentration of isolated finds north of the lake in Seneca County and eastward along the Seneca River. These find sites are all within the boundary of proglacial Lake Iroquois, indicating that they must date to the time after Lake Iroquois had emptied. (See Fig. 2) Few encampments have been identified anywhere in the Iitliacala. City/Scape: Cultural Resource Amendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 23 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tomokins Countv, NY CNortheast, one of them being the Potts Site in Oswego County. Analysis of the materials recovered from the Potts Site indicate relationships with the Shoop site in Pennsylvania and Bull Brook in Massachusetts, both in terms of the types of artifacts present and the chert sources utilized in their manufacture (Ritchie, 1980:30). Paleo-Indians moved seasonally, ranging over broad areas in their search for game and �J other foodstuffs. According to Ritchie and Funk, as a result of higher water levels their sites are often located on elevated terraces overlooking major waterways (Ritchie & Funk, 1973:6). In considering the potential for Paleo-Indian sites it is, therefore, necessary to also consider the.question of the water levels in the area and most particularly the water levels associates with proglacial Lake Iroquois. In any event, habitation sites would likely consist of small i seasonal open-air camps, specialized procurement areas and.possibly kill sites, which have been documented in the western states, but never in the Northeast. The reason for the absence of kill sites in the Northeast, it is suggested, is the result of differences in procurement strategy in these two areas (Anderson, 1990). It has traditionally been assumed that these nomadic peoples were strictly "big game" .� hunters; however that assumption has been called into question by the discovery of fish, bird, small mammal bones and some plant remains found in association with Paleo-Indian sites ' (Eisenberg, 1978:65-71). It now seems that in addition to the large animals that comprised their principal food source, the Paleo-Indians also hunted small game and gathered a wide variety of plants to support their diet. Paleo-Indian sites are quite rare in the archaeological record, but have been found in their greatest numbers in the Northeast in association with major waterways such as the Hudson, Susquehanna and Delaware, and in quarry zones such as the Wallkill Valley. The Archaic Stage The Archaic period in the Northeast is better represented than the Paleo-Indian. (See 1 fig. 3) It is divided into four stages: the Early Archaic, the Middle Archaic, the Late Archaic and, depending on ones terminology, the Transitional or Terminal Archaic. The term Terminal Archaic is used here (after Snow, 1980). In many important respects, the nature of life in the Archaic period was little different from the nomadic lives lived by the Paleo- Indians; however, during the time span of the Archaic significant changes in -the environment I occurred. The tundra -like landscape began to give way, first to spruce forest and then to a forest composed of various conifers, hemlocks and hardwoods. As the hardwood forests advanced northward, a new ecosystem became available, an ecosystem that provided a range of nuts (in particular the acorn), grasses and tubers that supported both the smaller game of the Archaic period and the human population as well. While stressing the continuity of the .Archaic period with the earlier stages, the Archaic period did see technological _ diversification, including the first appearance of ground and polished stone tools, including woodworking tools, grinding tools, and atlatl weights; and changes in subsistence strategies, most notably an increase in sedentism. In central New York State this is the first period from which there are burials. Burials ' permit archaeologists to draw conclusions concerning the differences between peoples. In ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource ' Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 24 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. NY �i this period, apparently associated with two different cultures, there are skeletons with elongated craniums and others with rounded. At some sites there are also skeletons which suggests a fusion of the two types, suggesting, perhaps, that under some circumstances the two groups intermarried. The grave goods accompanying the skeletons are like those .r1 recovered at Frontenac Island (the best known Archaic burial site in central New York and approximately 20 miles north of the project area), including an antler effigy comb, turtle shell rattles, and bone flutes (Ritchie, 1980:104-125). In the vicinity of the project the Archaic period (based on diagnostic projectile points) is represented by the Brown Farm Site (Al09-06-0087) and the Plus Site (Al0903.000243). (See Fig. 1) The Brown Site is in the Town of Ithaca, the Plus Site in the Town of Dryden. It is likely that some of the unidentified prehistoric sites also date to this period, which lasted from roughly 4,000 BC to 1700 BC, a time during which the Copper and Bronze Ages and the construction of the great Pyramids of Giza were all taking place in the Old World (Snow, 1980:187). . -' In central New York, the Laurentian and Small Stemmed Point Traditions represent two different Late Archaic populations. The Laurentian Tradition, divided into the earlier Vergennes Phase and the later Brewerton Phase, is characterized by the use of copper (mined on Lake Superior) and polished stone tools (ulus, plummets and bird -shaped object that were called "bannerstones", but are now recognized as atlatl weights). Sites are often located along the edges of small lakes or the shallower portions of large lakes, rivers, streams, and/or marshes (wetlands). The second tradition, referred to as the Brewerton Phase for a large midden site at Brewerton on Lake Oneida, is identified in part by projectile points that are called Brewerton Side -Notched, Brewerton Eared -Notched, Brewerton Eared Triangle, and Brewerton Corner -Notched. The Small Stemmed Point Tradition, which encompasses the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau of the Appalachian Uplands and the Erie -Ontario Lowlands, extended from the Genessee Valley to the west to the Susquehanna Valley on the east, and from north central r Pennsylvania on the soutlrto Lake Ontario and Oneida Lake on the north. It is divided into three separate phases: the Lamoka, the Frontenac, and the River and Vestal complexes (Ritchie, 1980:36-79). Their sites have been found on small lakes, shallower portions of (' larger lakes, substantial rivers and streams, and large marshes. Although the Lamoka type site was a large site that included large, deep, ash -filled pits, large storage pits, packed gravel floors and the remains of rectangular houses of a size to serve a nuclear family, most Lamoka sites are small seasonal camps with little refuse (Ritchie, 1944:292-310 &Ritchie & Funk, i 1973:41). ' The people of this time followed a lifeway called the "Lake Forest Tradition"(Snow, 1980:188). Geographically, the "Lake Forest Tradition" extended south of the Great Lakes east into Canada and along the St. Lawrence River into northern New England. Ritchie ' identified several phases for this tradition, including the Vergennes, Vosburg (primarily a . Hudson Valley phenomenon), and Brewerton. Of these three, it is the Brewerton that is most clearly associated with central New York, being found in the Lake Ontario drainage, which includes the Seneca and Oswego rivers. Using Ritchie's definition, which focuses on interior ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource A noendi. ix A• Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 25 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY New York State, the diagnostic traits of the "Lake Forest Tradition" include "the gouge; adze' plummet; ground slate points and knives, including the semi -lunar form or ulu, which occurs also in chipped stone; simple forms of the bannerstone; a variety of chipped -stone projectile points, mainly broad -bladed and side -notched forms; and the barbed bone point" (Snow, 1980:218 quoting Ritchie, 1969a:79). Some use of copper, probably obtained through trade, is also characteristic of this group. With respect to their belief systems, evidence is scanty. There is virtually no evidence of ceremonialism, and few burials are reported (Ritchie, 1980:92). On Cayuga Lake and its tributaries fish, including salmon, were an important resource, as is seen from material recovered at Frontenac Island. Ritchie described the site as "an ideal situation with respect to excellent fishing grounds" and reported that the Jesuit, Peter Raffeix had written in 1670 that the "exuberance in the area of fish, wildfowl, and deer" had astonished him (Ritchie, 1980:106). Although located in an area that was associated with the Small Stemmed Tradition (within the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau), the people at Frontenac Lake had ties with the Laurentian Culture in the St. Lawrence Valley as well as with Lamoka Lake to the south and west. This apparent dual affiliation may be a reflection of their position on a long, narrow lake that supported and encouraged travel, and at the headwaters of a series of rivers and streams that connected Lake Cayuga with the ocean. The area was also criss- crossed by a series of Indian trails that facilitated travel and communication. The Terminal Archaic Stage The Late Archaic period is followed by the Terminal Archaic Stage, dating from approximately 1500 BC to 1000 BC. In central New York, the early years of the Terminal Archaic are dominated by the Frost Island phase, "... characterized by Susquehanna Broad points, steatite vessels, and both Marcey Creek and Vinette I ceramics at some later sites"(Snow, 1980:251). The few burials reported are cremations, with few grave goods. The steatite vessels and projectile points recovered from the Susquehanna tributaries, and throughout the Finger Lakes region, resemble those of Pennsylvania, suggesting the area from which the Frost Island phase originated. Sites are small, occasionally overlap, and are usually ' in a riverine setting, often restricted to the first terrace (Snow, 1980:251). The contrast between the Frost Island phase and its predecessor in central New York leads Snow to .' conclude that the Frost Island phase represents a migration of peoples, in which an'entirely new cultural system originating in southern Pennsylvania moved up the Susquehanna River system into central New York (Snow, 1980:252). The question of whether this migration resulted in the replacement of the previous population or whether that population was i submerged into the new one remains open. Using a variety of evidence, including linguistical evidence, Snow believes that the Frost Island people of central New York are related .to subsequent cultures in the area, cultures that are known to us as Iroquoian. The Woodland Stage The Woodland Stage in New York State is divided into several substages, including the Early Woodland Stage (c. 1000-760 BC), the Middle Woodland State (c. 760 BC-1000 ' AD), and the Late Woodland Stage (c. 1000-1500 AD). These have been further divided to ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Annendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 26 Town of Lansine. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tomukins County. NY identify cultural groups within the substages. Sites used by Woodland groups tend to be away from the major waterways and are frequently located on inland streams. In later periods there ' is some indication of the presence of palisaded villages. Around these sites, on the alluvial plains of nearby streams, the Indian fields were located. Horticulture, although practiced in ._� other parts of North America at an earlier date, does not appear in this area until c. 1000 AD. 1-J The changeover to cultivation of a variety of domesticates, among them maize, beans, gourds, sumpweed and sunflower, created a marked change in the pattern of land use and settlement. With the advent of sedentary or semi -sedentary occupations, the character of sites also ' changed. Ceramics begin to make a regular appearance on Early Woodland sites, its use increasing through time until pottery becomes the most common artifact associated with many sites. In addition, burial ceremonialism increased in complexity, providing indications of the development of social stratification. The variety of materials utilized by the Woodland peoples also indicates that they had established and maintained long distance trade networks. 'The Early Woodland period was the earliest to use of pottery, though it does not appear that agriculture, including the growing of corn, beans and squash, was practiced. That does not necessarily mean that the indigenous population was not engaged in the active manipulation of some plants. Ritchie suggests that there may have been a more intensive use of such plant foods as Chenopodium (goosefoot) and Polygon= (smartweed) (Ritchie & Funk, 1973:349). Though this may not have be evident in the archaeological record of central New York, such a supposition is supported by evidence from the western portions of the Eastern Woodlands. Writing in 1995, Bruce Smith described the process by which the gathering of plant foods led to an intensification of their use by groups of "affluent- and sedentary hunter -gatherers who lived in rich environments" (Smith, 1995:196). The subsistence strategies of these groups included fish, migratory waterfowl, and shellfish, all of which were important in their diets, along with white-tailed deer, raccoons, turkeys, rabbits, and squirrel, and hickory nuts, acorns and other plant foods. For these people the development of purposefully cultivated plants - created at first by unintentionally dropped seeds and the removal of plants around the habitation sites — represented a "small but significant ... additional storable food reserve for winter and early spring" (Smith, 1995:197), By 500 to 200 BC, acceding to Smith, sunflower, marsh elder, chenodpod (goosefoot), and squash seed was being utilized in areas west of New York State, along with erect knotweed, maygrass, and little barley (Smith, 1995:197-8). ' The evidence of storage pits, deduced from the fact that the soil beneath the excavated pits is- apparently unaltered by fire, suggests that nuts and other plant foods, such as those ' identified by Smith, were being processed and stored. While the use of plant foods does not require the presence of pottery, pottery is often associated with food storage. Pottery was being manufacture in the Southeast as early as 4,500 years ago, but in central New York, as elsewhere in New York, the earliest pottery type is Vinette I pottery, dating to approximately 1000 BC. Based on present information, no Early Woodland sites have been reported in the project area. It is not clear why no Early Woodland sites have been identified, but it is more. likely that we are not looking in the right places than that the area was unoccupied. However, � I ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource �1 Annendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Project Area 27 ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins Countv, NY looking at the broader area, one site near Oneonta, in the Susquehanna drainage, contains a Meadowood component dated to 1230±95 BC. There are, however, Middle Woodland sites in the immediate vicinity, including the Kipp Island and Menard Bridge Number I sites (Ritchie & Funk, 1973:154-164 & Fig. 2). Both of these sites are in the general vicinity of the project area. There are also a number of small sites containing assemblages that resemble those found on Middle Woodland sites that have been reported on the shores of Cayuga Lake (Materials Investigation, Inc, 1982:922). In central New York the Middle Woodland is primarily associated with the Point Peninsula culture, whose origins are said to be on the western end of Lake Ontario in the area of the Niagara Peninsula (Fiedel, 1990). The Point Peninsula culture reflects a Great Lakes _i adaptation, as opposed to the Hopewellian, which is found further to the west, or the Fox Creek phase, which is a Hudson Valley -Atlantic Coast phenomenon. Within the Point Peninsula culture there were a number of phases that find expression in central New York, including Kipp Island, Canoe Point, Hunters Home and Carpenter Brook. In this time period, Kipp Island is predominant in central New York. By 700 AD Kipp Island and Hunter's Home, another phase associated with central New York, had expanded eastward as far as the Hudson River Valley, swamping — to use Funk's phrase — the indigenous culture. At this point, cord -marked pottery and the Levanna point are diagnostic of the cultures of central New York. When we examine subsistence patterns, it appears that hunting and fishing remained important activities, but, as discussed above, there is evidence that plants such as goosefoot and sumpweed were increasingly utilized. Copper and marine shells testify to long distance trade networks. Smoking pipes appear, suggesting that tobacco or some other substance was being employed. In contrast with the earlier period, burial ceremonialism was t 1 absent. In central New York, the Late Woodland Stage is characterized by a number of important developments, among them: • the development of large stockaded villages; • the indisputable evidence for agriculture, including corn, beans and squash; • the presence of endemic warfare, as evidenced by numerous arrowpoint riddled skeletons in central New York cemeteries; and -' • evidence of ritual cannibalism being practiced among the Iroquoian peoples. Distinctive pottery types, such as the Oak Hill Phase, the Chance Phase, and the Garoda C� Phase, all of which derive from central New York, begin to be seen on sites in the Mohawk and Hudson valleys, indicating that there was interaction between eastern and central New York State. But, there remained distinctive differences between central New York State, where the Owasco people evolved into the Iroquois Nation, and the areas to the east of the Finger Lake region, where Algonquian -speaking people continued to hold sway. In the Cayuga Lake area, there are a number of sites associated with the Late Woodland period, including the Levanna site, which is located a short distance north and east ' of the project. The Levanna site (Cayuga County) is a manifestation of the Owasco culture, ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource ' Historic Background f Pro' Appendix A: Prehistoric and Histo co sect Area 28 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY as defined by the type -site located at Auburn in Seneca County (Ritchie, 1980:273-4). Characteristic of the Owasco culture is plant cultivation, but hunting, fishing and the gathering of wild plants also was employed. Projectile points were broad and triangular, including the Levanna point (also noted in the Late Middle Woodland) and the Madison point, both of which are found throughout New York State. These triangular projectile points, in contrast with the earlier, larger types used as spear points, were intended for use with a bow. There were ceramic pots, bone and antler implements, polished stone woodworking tools, ' such as adzes and axes, and decorative objects, such as beads. Within the project area is a Late Woodland site reported to be located on Farrell Road east of Warren Road (Materials Investigation, Inc, 1982:23). Identified as the Moravec Burial Site (Rochester Museum NOR2-3), it is located on a sand deposit in a poorly drained portion of a floodplain. Another' apparent Owasco site is described as located on Peruville Road near the farm of Bertram Buck (Parish, 1967:11). That site is on the eastern edge of the project area on the boundary ;( between the Town of Lansing and the Town of Groton. In the Late Woodland period, then, we see evidence of the cultures that persisted into the Historic Period, and, according to Snow, "the prehistory of central New York is from this time on the prehistory of the Iroquoian speakers" (Snow, 1980:262). One might think that as we approach the present the archaeological record would become clearer, but in most instances this is not the case. In central New York, including the Finger Lake drainages, no fewer than six phases, primarily defined by the ceramics associated with each, are recognized. These are: TABLE 3 Tradition Phase Geographical Location ,U Owasco - c.1100 AD Carpenter Brook Central New York, extending into Mohawk drainage Canandaigua Central New York, extending into Mohawk ' drainage Castle Creek Central New York, extending into Mohawk drainage Iroquois — c. 1300 AD Oak Hill Central. New York, extending into Mohawk drainage Chance Central New York, extending into Mohawk drainage Garoda Related to historic Mohawk and limited to Mohawk drainage Mohawk Limited to Mohawk drainage ;� ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Anuendix A. Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 29 of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY IITown Lrt Today the Owasco culture is viewed as the precursor of the Iroquois. This was not always the case, for there was a time when the Iroquois were viewed as another example of a migration of a distinctive new culture into a settled area. Some of the distinctive characteristics of the cultures of central New York have already been noted, including the importance of horticulture and the necessity of palisaded village in the face of increasingly savage intervillage warfare, that included scalping and cannibalism (Ritchie & Funk, 1973:360-366). The social system was based on lineage, as evidenced by the presence of longhouses with several hearths were intended for the use of extended families. Burial ' ceremonialism decreased, with a decrease in the number and quality of grave goods. The dominant projectile point became the Levanna point. The style of the cord -impressed pottery associated with the Owasco culture is viewed by Snow as intermediate between the Point Peninsula and Iroquois types. Elbow pipes came into use, some of them being effigy pipes of stone or ceramic. Fishing equipment decreased, except for net sinkers. It is not clear whether this represents a decrease in the importance of fishing, or a change in the strategy employed. Sites represented in the earliest period — Carpenter Brook — include 1) spring and summer fishing camps located on river rifts or the margins of marshes and lake shallows, and 2) semi- permanent unpalisaded villages that were usually located on the second terraces of large streams overlooking the river flood plains on which the fields were situated Ritchie & Funk, 1973:165-225). By the Canandaigua phase (c. 1100-1200 AD) village earthworks and palisades began to appear. Madison points, the dominant projectile point type in the Iroquois period, were also in use. By the Castle Creek phase (c. 1200-1300 AD) all of the main n villages were palisaded, but there were still undefended seasonal camps located on rivers, marshes and lakes. Horticulture was being practiced at Roundtop in the Susquehanna drainage near Binghamton (Broome County), including the raising and storage of maize, ' beans and squash. The presence of horticulture did not mean that deer hunting and the ' gathering of wild plant food did not remain an important subsistence strategy. Pottery types, including pots with collars applied above constricted necks, were manufactured. Such decorated collars, were to become one of the diagnostic traits of Iroquoian pottery. As has been stated above, the Iroquois culture, which thrived from 1300 AD to 1600 AD, is now thought to have grown out of the Owasco system. Households continued to be based on lineages, with matrilineal lineages gradually developing. Evidence from the analysis of ceramic types indicates that there was intervillage exchange of pottery, though whether this ;., was effected by actual exchange, or by women marrying between villages or being captured in raids, is not known. Madison points, noted in the late Owasco time period, become the dominant projectile point throughout the area. At some time, perhaps around 1500 AD, the League of the Iroquois was formed. Snow believes that the formation of the League was a gradual process, rather than a single event;, however, it is said that one of the tribes, ' specifically the Seneca, joined the League at a time when a total eclipse of the sun occurred. The only possible date that this could refer to is June 28, 1451 (Snow, 1980:317). Several site types exist, including small camps, but there was a preference for large villages on easily defended hilltops. These villages had increasingly elaborate palisades, some with three or 1, more concentric rings. The culture of the Iroquois continued to exist into the historical period, and the earliest records report that at the beginning of the 170i century the area around ' Cayuga Lake was populated, with a naturally -fortified village located approximately a mile ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Aooendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 30 ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tomokins Countv. NY south of the village of Genoa on the west side of Salmon Creek (Materials Investigation, Inc, 1982:23). An unfortified part of the village was located on the east side of the stream. A ' ceramic pot described as "Seneca Indian -style" was reportedly recovered from a burial within the fortified portion of the village (Follett, 1956:25 quoted in Materials Investigation, Inc, ' 1982). The implication drawn is that there was contact between Cayuga and Seneca groups, an inference that hardly seems unlikely, since they lived immediately adjacent to one another. Within the project area Parker reported "a burial site on the Fay Townley farm near South Lansing (Parker, 1920:703 & Fig. 3). This site, identified in the New York State Museum site files as NYSM Site #5019 (Parker Site TOMP 02. Parker also reports "traces of r occupation' along the shore of Cayuga Lake between Portland Point and Myers (NYSM Site #5034). Outside the immediate project area, but indicative of the types of locations utilized by Native Americans, is the area around the mouth of Cayuga Lake, where several sites are F I located and the earliest settlers report -finding cleared fields. Additional prehistoric :f archaeological sites are. also reported in the area of Ludlowville and at the mouth of Salmon Creek. While conclusions concerning the sensitivity of the proposed project area are summarized in Table 4, the investigation clearly indicates that the entire area around Cayuga Lake was an attractive environment for Native Americans for many millennia. As the subsistence patterns of the indigenous inhabitants of the northeastern United States have become clearer to modern archaeologists, it has become increasingly accepted that not only F1 the streams, but the associated wetlands and their fringes were intensively exploited as one of the richest subsistence zones available. Wetlands and streams provided aquatic life such as fish, frogs, water insects and water flora, avian resources in the form of the birds that were themselves attracted to the teeming life of the wetlands, and the large game that watered in these spots. Throughout the millennia, the mosaic of food sources available to the prehistoric inhabitants of the area would have been incredibly rich. The recovery of Paleo-Indian projectile points at the mouth of Cayuga Lake indicates that from the earliest periods of occupation in the Northeast man was present here. He was here in the Archaic Period, the i Woodland Period, and when the first Europeans arrived. The fact that we have so few reported sites does not indicate the absence of Native Americans in the area, but is more likely . the failure of our sampling methods. U Having said that, it is possible to draw some broad conclusions concerning the potential sensitivity of various areas within the project. In categorizing the project area as possessing either high potential, moderate potential, low potential or no potential to yield prehistoric archaeological resources, we are not attempting to absolutely rule out an area, but merely to create a ranking that will permit us to identify those areas most likely to contain such resources. This is particularly relevant to any assessment of the relative sensitivity of the sites proposed for the ten pump stations (identified as Pump Station 1-10). (See Table 3) As described by others (Ritchie, 1980; Ritchie & Funk, 1973; Funk, 1965; Funk, 1976; Newman & Salwen, 1977), areas with a high potential are those areas most likely to contain sites, often with more than one component. Such sites are often large, with significant concentrations of ' artifacts, due either to large numbers of people having occupied the site or from repeated use. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource f Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 31 rr Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins Countv. NY 1 L.' Medium sensitivity suggests that there is a good change of encountering sites. These sites will most likely be smaller and their location within the sensitive area less certain. In areas of low sensitivity, few sites would be expected. They would likely be small, special purpose sites, such as transient camps and small exploitation sites, including still -hunting camps, fishing sites, lumbering camps, nutting camps and expedient quarry sites, as well as [� rockshelters. Those sites deemed to have no potential for prehistoric sites would be areas that have been profoundly disturbed, leaving only sterile soil. Based on these general statements, the pattern of sites expected within the project area may be summarized as follows: • Sites may be expected in areas on or near water. This hold true for all time periods, ' but sensitivity decreases with elevation above the watercourses and distance from them. -� • For sites located on watercourses, there is a preference for sites situated at the confluence of two streams.or at the confluence of a stream and.a lake. • Sites have been identified on small lakes (Dryden Lake) and in the shallower areas of Cayuga Lake (Frontenac Island). • Although no sites associated with wetlands were noted in the project area, high ground overlooking such areas, should they exist, would possess a high sensitivity for prehistoric sites. • The majority of sites are located in lowland areas, as opposed to upland locations. The exception to this would be the potential for palisaded village sites to be located on easily defended hilltops. Review of the History of the Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights, and Town of Dryden Like the 19°i centuiy writers that produced several sketches of the historical development of the project area, I claim no originality in the material produced below. It is primarily an attempt to outline those events that may have a bearing on the historical sensitivity of the project area. Tompkins County, named for Governor Tompkins of New York, was erected from a C portion of Seneca and Cayuga County in April, 1817. The towns appropriated, including Hector, Ulysses, Covert, Dryden, and parts of Locke and Milton; at one time all had been townships in the Military Tract, most of which had been given classical names. (Map 4) The L� Town of Lansing, within which the largest, part of the project area. is located, was taken from the Town of Milton. As originally organized, Tompkins County contained six towns, including the Town of Division, which was subsequently renamed Groton, and the Town of ' Covert, which was ultimately ceded to Seneca County, from which it had been taken. In 1821 the Town of Ulysses was divided to form the Towns of Enfield and Ithaca. The following 1' year, the Towns of Caroline, Danby, and Cayuta were taken from Tioga County. The name of the Town of Cayuta was later changed to the Town of Newfield. Other minor adjustments ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource :1 Aooendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Pro iect Area 32 ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Toinvldns Countv, NY took place in the following years, but by the end of the first quarter of the 19a' century, the towns associated with the project area were fixed. The Villages of Cayuga Heights and ' Lansing are of more recent origin, but, for our purposes, their histories are relevant only in the larger context. In 1866 it was reported that Tompkins County was well served by local railroads that connected Ithaca with the New York and Erie Railroad at Owego, and by steamers that ran on ' Cayuga Lake, stopping at a number of docks along the way. The lake was reported to be well stocked with fish, including Salmon trout, Whitefish, Black bass, Pike, Pickerel and Perch. The salmon in particular was remarked, being described as having "flesh as red and luscious as any taken nearer tide water.. ", but it was remarked that salmon were now prevented from entering the lake and its tributaries by the "reckless manner in which the outlet has been dammed, and its waters polluted with the vile offal from Starch, Gas, and other Factories, located near the stream" (Stone & Clark, 1866). Salmon Creek, emptying into Cayuga Lake about 8 miles north of Ithaca, is named as the principal stream in the county. Salmon Creek originally entered Cayuga Lake some distance north of its present location, a fact that has a bearing on the prehistoric potential in that area. Taughanic Creek, with its impressive .waterfall, empties into the west side of the lake opposite Salmon Creek. At the south end of the lake are Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Six Mile Creek, Buttermilk Creek, and Enfield Creek, all of which flow into the south end of Cayuga Lake. The earliest European to see Cayuga Lake is said to have been Etienne Brule, a French ' Jesuit priest who arrived in 1615. Others followed him, including Peter Raffeix, who in 1670 wrote that he had been astonished by the plentiful fish, wildfowl and deer he found (Ritchie, 1980:106). The story of the earliest contacts between Native Americans and the Europeans . need not detain us, except to note that there was clearly an indigenous population engaged in the practice of horticulture, and that this population was gradually drawn into fur trade with the French to the north and the Dutch and English to the east. With the coming of the American Revolution the Iroquois, fearing encroachments on their land by the Americans and interruption of their trade relations with the British, entered ' the war on the side of the Crown, the Oneidas being the only tribe of the League of the - Iroquois to support the American cause. The harassment of frontier hamlets and farmsteads by the Iroquois, of which the 1778 Cherry Valley massacre is one example, led the following year to the Sullivan -Clinton Expedition. By this expedition, George Washington, faced with an overwhelming British presence in New York City, Newport and in northern New York at ' Niagara and Oswego, sought to break the British -Iroquois alliance, neutralize the Iroquois, and bring calm to central New York. After a series of negotiations, General John Sullivan of New Hampshire was chosen for this task: The strategy employed was to divide the expedition into three parts: the first, led by ' Sullivan, was to travel through Pennsylvania along the Susquehanna River; the second, led by James Clinton, was to march west from Albany, meeting Sullivan's forces; the third, which never reached the Finger Lakes region, was commanded by General James Bodhead. He was instructed to march from Fort Pitt along the Allegheny River, destroying Seneca -villages ' along the way. Washington was clear as to his objectives, these being to stealthily attack ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Annendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 33 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY Iroquois villages, taking prisoners who could be exchanged for colonial captives held by the Iroquois, and to destroy those villages so that they would be uninhabitable. With the ' destruction of Indian village as an objective, Washington additionally directed that all the Indian fields and stored food were to be destroyed, hoping in this way to deprive both the —, Iroquois and their allies, the British. The campaign was fraught with delay and miscalculations, but the death of Iroquois warriors in battle and the destruction of their villages and crops left the Iroquois with little will to fight the Americans (Kammen, 1985:47- . ■ 58). In the course of the campaign Sullivan's Expedition ranged on both sides of Cayuga ;.' Lake, home of the Cayuga, who were described at the time as being weak with little food for the coming winter. One group, led by Colonel William Bulter, moved southward from Cayuga, at the north end of the lake, along the east side of Cayuga Lake to the location of Ithaca at the south. - Another group, led by Colonel Henry Dearborn, set out on September 21, 1779 along the west side of the lake, destroying villages and crops as he went. In six days, Dearborn's troops burned six village, in addition to scattered houses, had destroyed many acres of crops and fruit trees, had captured one Iroquois woman, and burned to death two other Iroquois. ' The specifics of Butler's expedition along the east side.of the lake are not reported by Kammen, though it is reported elsewhere that one member of his force was captured, tortured and killed by the Indians. What is known is that native villages and farmsteads were located on the east side of the lake as well. According to an 1866 historical sketch of Tompkins County, three "considerable" villages were located on the east side of Cayuga Lake, one of which was the chief village of the Cayuga (Stone & Stewart, 1866:10). In addition, there were numerous small settlements scattered along the lake. These were all burned, and their crops destroyed (Stone & Steward, 1866:10). The expeditionary forces are said to have overlooked two villages, one at Taughannock Creek, where they had a small town, with fields and orchards, and another further back from the lake near Trumansburg. In his report to Washington, Sullivan claimed that 40 villages, numerous isolated houses, 160,000 bushels of corn, as well as other vegetables, and many well established orchards had been destroyed (Kammen, 1985:56-57). Sullivan's expedition did not lead to the surrender of the Iroquois, but it did have the effect of driving them west to Fort Niagara and then into Canada; by the end of the American Revolution only 6,000 Indians remained in New York (Kammen, 1985:61). In the years immediately following the end the Revolution, treaties with the remaining Indians confined them to an area west of the Unadilla River, which denotes the boundary between Otsego and Chenango County. This boundary is east of Tompkins County, but circumstances in New York soon brought pressure to bear on this demarcation line, since one of the inducements to serve in the New York Militia had been the promise of land - land that had been previously ' been occupied by the Iroquois. One by one the tribes were brought to the negotiating table, ceding land to New York State in return for what today seems a paltry amount of cash and trade goods. In 1789, it was the Cayuga's turn. They ceded all their land, except for a small ' area at the north end of Cayuga Lake, for less than $2,200.00 cash and an annual payment of '' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Aoaendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 34 ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY - $500.00 (Kammen, 1985:64). It is against this background that the first permanent settlers came to Tompkins County. �-! Once the State of New York had acquired title to the lands east of Seneca Lake, then _ Governor Clinton sent Simeon DeWitt, his nephew, and at one time Chief Geographer to Washington, to survey and map the land that was to become the Military Tract, a tract containing 1,800,000 acres. The Military Tract was laid out into 26 townships, each of which received a number and a name associated with Greek or Roman classical heroes, with a few English writers, such as Dryden, Milton and Locke, to complete the list. (See Map 4) The names associated with Tompkins County include, among others, Ulysses, Ithaca, and Dryden. The Town of Lansing was formed from the Town of Milton. Others, like Enfield and 1 Caroline, were founded after the original classical fever had worn off The townships were then divided into 100 lots of 600 acres each, which were also numbered. Each man, or his (- heirs, if he had died during the war, received an allotment of land based on his rank at the time of discharge, with privates receiving 500 acres. In addition to paying off the troops, however, the settlement of the land was one of the important goals of New York State. . Although outside the project area, the first settlement in Tompkins County came at Ithaca, when in 1789 several men from Kingston, having explored the area the previous year, determined to make their home at the head of Cayuga Lake. Jacob Yaple, Isaac Sumon and Peter Hinepaw, finding several cleared patches, planted corn, and leaving a younger brother of Jacob Yaple to watch their crop, returned to Kingston. Having gathered their families .and ' supplies, they traveled west from Kingston to Owego in Chenango County. From there they set out for a 19-day journey, that covered all of 29 miles. The area was, at that time, on a frontier that was only beginning to be recognized by either Indians or settlers, but that did not F; apparently deter them. - Among the earliest settlers within the project area was Silas Ludlow, who, in 1791, , 2 along with his brother and his brother's son, purchased Military Lot 76 in what was then the Town of Milton. Virtually every history of Tompkins County tells the story of the Ludlow's dragging their sledge along the ice on Cayuga Lake to the mouth of Salmon Creek, where they ascended the stream to the falls, a source of water power for the mills they would establish there. (Photo 18 & 19) Ludlowville, now strictly a residential community, is the remnant of their initial settlement. The Ludlows were preceded by several months 'by Moses and Nicholas DePaw, who are said to have built the first settlement in the Town of Lansing at the mouth of Salmon Creek, and were followed by Ephraim Bloom, Captain Benajah Strong, and Andrew Myers, who built a log cabin for his family at the present hamlet of Myers (Parish, 1964). AS noted above, at that time Salmon Creek entered Cayuga Lake some r distance north of its, present location. This alteration in Salmon Creek has implications for the archaeological potential of the area around the hamlet of Myers. The mouth of Salmon Creek became a focus for early business in the Town of Lansing. Andrew Myers began carrying boat loads of potash up Cayuga Lake, and on occasion on to the Mohawk River and Albany (Bement 1981 quoted in Materials ' Investigation, Inc, 1982:25). Jonah Tooker, another early settler, built a log cabin trading post at the mouth of Salmon Creek in 1794. He traded merchandize with the other settlers and, it ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Annendix A: Prelustoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 35 ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County, NY is reported, with the remnants of the Indians in the area, who had either escaped the Sullivan expedition or who had returned from the west or Canada (Bement 1981 quoted in Materials ' Investigation, Inc, 1982:26). To assist the settlement of the Military Tract, including the area of Tompkins County, the New York State Legislature in 1792 authorized the construction of a road from Oxford in Chenango County to the east shore of Cayuga Lake. The work was begun in 1793 by Joseph Chaplin, who initially completed the road only as far as Virgil, on the western edge of Cortland County, where he had land. People wishing to travel further west urged him to continue construction, which he did, bringing the road as far as Kidders Ferry, near Ludlowville. He subsequently completed the road through Dryden to Ithaca. This roadway was referred to as the `Bridle Road," since in places it was so narrow that you could only pass by walking your horse. In the years following, other roads were built, including the Susquehanna and Bath Turnpike, which ran south of Cayuga and Seneca Lakes from Jericho E, in Chenango County to Bath in Steuben County (1804); the Owego and Ithaca Turnpike (1807-1811) running from Owego on the Susquehanna in Broome County to Ithaca; and the ' Ithaca and Geneva Turnpike on the west side of Cayuga Lake (1811). Each of these roads was an impetus to immigration and trade, as was the Erie Canal (1825) and the Cayuga and Seneca Canal (1828), which together provided easy transport between Tompkins County and the Hudson River (Stone & Stewart, 1866:10). In the same year that the Cayuga and Seneca Canal opened, the first railroad in the area was incorporated. The Ithaca and Owego Railroad Company did not prosper, nor did the Cayuga and Susquehanna, but other railroads did. The Erie Railroad reached Owego by 1843; the same year the Erie Railroad leased the defunct Cayuga and Susquehanna to the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Company. By 1860, it was considered that the combination of lake transportation, which had links to both rail lines and the canals, had created in Tompkins County, one of the principal routes for supplying the west with anthracite coal from Pennsylvania (French, 1860:654). Today the railroads and canals that served Tompkins County are, for the most part, abandoned, but the road system, parts of which date to the 18"' century, remains an integral part of the communication and transportation system. In the Town of Lansing, East Shore Drive (Route 34) and Ridge Road (Route 34B) generally corresponds with the trail used by the Cayuga to travel from the head of Cayuga Lake to their various settlements along the lake. According to the Map of the Old Indiwi Trails in Tompkins County, the trail began at the inlet to Cayuga, ran through Renwick, where there was a village and an important spring, then ran a short distance inland, past another village and a burial site, to Ludlowville, where there are reports of a camp site. From Ludlowville the trail ran northwest through Lake Ridge to Cayuga. Castle (Norris, 1944 & Fig. 4). From Ithaca another trail ran east along the south side of Fall Creek to Dryden, where the trail diverged, one trail passing northeast to the Onondaga, a second to the south through the Town of Caroline toward Owego. Other trails extended southward from Ithaca along the streams that flowed into the lake. In response to the needs of the stage lines in Tompkins County, which looked for grades that did not unduly tax the ' horses, some of the roads were changed. An example of this is that the stage route to Auburn ran'/2 mile west of Ludlowville, passing through Fiddler's Green, rather than through the village. As a result, Ludlowville began to expand westward. This need to consider `, ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 36 ' ToNm of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY topography continued to be a critical factor to the routes selected for roads until very recent times, when heavy equipment, the technological equivalent of the 600 lb. gorilla, allowed ' engineers not topography to determine what routes the road would follow. Another example is the portion of Ridge Road between the intersection of Ludlowville Road and Myers Road. Originally the path of Route 34B ran north along Ludlowville Road through the village and then westward to join Ridge Road just south of the Lansingville Road. Today Ridge Road by-passing connects the two end of Ludlowville Road, the village. Returning to the Town of Lansing, which was named for Chancellor Lansing of Albany, the formation of the town from land taken from the Town of Genoa and the former Town of Milton, has been. outlined above. Although the Town of Lansing has been in existence since the early years of the 10h century, the present Village of Lansing is of recent date, having been organized for administrative purposes within the last quarter century. Formerly the village of Ludlowville was the principal village, with Lake Ridge, Lansingville, North Lansing, Myers, Forest City (East Landing), Libertyville (South Lansing) being hamlets. In addition, some names, such as Lansing Station and Asbury, are the names ' associated with railroad depots, rather than independent settlements. is By 1825, according to Spafford's Gazetteer of New York State; Tompkins County had . 10 townships and 13 post offices. The population was 26,178: 20609 whites, 66 blacks, with an addition 6 blacks that were recorded as slaves, and 20 foreigners, Of the 26,178 people, 9704 were engaged in agriculture, 73 in commerce, 925 in manufacturing. There were 105 school districts, serving over 7000 children between the ages of 5 and 15 years. There were approximately 80,000 acres of improved land in the county, 20,000 cattle, 4,000 horses, and 40,000 sheep. In 1821, 18,621 yards of home-made cloth were produced. There were 35 grist mills, 92 sawmills, 8 oil mills, 1 paper mill, 3 printing offices, 18 fulling mills, 39 carding mills, 1 iron works, 3 trip hammers, 32 distilleries, and 23 asheries (Spafford, 1825). As noted, Ludlowville was in the early P9 h and early 2dh century the principal village in the Town of Lansing. In 1795, four years after the purchase of Military Lot 76, Silas ' Ludlow purchased Military Lot 75 and built a grist mill. This mill, located below the falls (Photo 18 & 19), was subsequently replaced by a much larger structure, the operation of which required a dam, mill -race and water wheel (Bement, 1981 quoted in Materials Investigation, Inc., 1982:26) The presence of a source of water power led to the growth of Ludlowville (various called Ludlow's Mill, Ludlowtown, Ludlow Village), and by 1810 it was, according to the Journal of DeWitt Clinton, an important commercial center. In that ' year, Selkreg, writing in 1894, reported that there were 300 inhabitants, two churches, six stores, two blacksmith shops, one drug store (kept by Fred Moore), one hardware store and tin shop (kept by Charles E. Wood), two shoe stores (kept by Fillman Smith & John Bailey), ' one meat market (kept by Frank Lobdell), one millinery shop (kept by Margaret Van Anken), an Odd Fellows Hall and a public hall owned by Nelson E. Lyon, one flouring mill, one grist mill, and one saw mill (Selkreg, 1894:346). There was an "old hotel and premises" owned by .Nelson E. Lyon. The largest general store was- kept by Nelson E. Lyon; the second largest by Charles G. Benjamin. Oliver Phelps built the first store in the village; he also operated the ,1 ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Anoendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 37 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY. first steamboat on Cayuga Lake (Selkreg, 1894:346). Calvin Burr, whose house still stands in the village (Photo 28), opened his business there in 1812. At various times in the years that followed, Ludlowville supported a tannery, spoke factory, a fulling mill, dye house and sorghum mill. In 1860, there were 50 dwellings, 3 churches, and several factories, including the grist and sawmill and an axe helve factory (French, 1860). By 1866, Stone & Steward's New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York indicates that the population of the village was declining, with 256 inhabitants (Stone & Stewart, 1866:12), but despite this decline, it remained the largest village in the town. (Map 7A C) In 1879, Ludlowville was still the largest village in the town, boasting 2 churches, a hotel and a school, a post office, 3 dry goods stores, 2 drug stores, a hardware store, 2 millinery shops, a boot and shoe store, 2 wagon ships, a harness shop, 2 blacksmiths, a brick and tile yard, a shingle -weaver, a marble shop, a spoke factory, and the grist and saw mills (Evert & Ensign, 1879). There was one lawyer, two physicians, and, in addition to the he Odd Fellows Hall, there was building called Burr's Hall. The Cayuga Lake Railroad had a station in Ludlowville, while roads ran north through LansingviIle to Auburn, south to Ithaca, and east through Peruville to Cortland. Ludlowville has been marginalized as a commercial center, but it retains many of its 19°i century houses, churches and the brick 19a' century commercial block (now converted into apartments) (Photo 24). In addition to Ludlowville, there were several hamlets, some quite small, but others that grew to some importance. One of the smaller settlements was "Fiddler's Green." In 1798 Jonah Tooker moved his store from the mouth of Salmon Creek to the top of the hill, approximately a mile north of Ludlowville. The settlement of Fiddler's Green existed only briefly, ceasing to be active by 1823, but in that time it had not only the first store, but the first schoolhouse and post office in the Town of Lansing. According to Pierce and Hurd's 1879 History of the History of Tiogc; Chemung, Tompkins and Schuyler Cozlntles, New York Tooker's store stood in the front yard of the house owned by A. J. Sperry (Pierce & Hurd, 1879:520).. The post office, kept in a little red house near the road on the Sperry farm, was established in 1806; in 1815 it was moved to Ludlowville, which was by then the more prominent community. Tfie schoolhouse, located across from Tooker's house, was built c. 1813 (Isenberg, 1966 quoted in Materials Investigation, Inc., 1985:28). On the Sperry farm there was also a cemetery and the foundation of an early church. The 1866 map of the Town of Lansing locates the A. J. Sperry property and Fiddler's Green (Map 6A) (Photo 4-6 & 108) Another hamlet that was once important and is today moribund is Myers (Photo 58- 60). Myers was among the earliest settlements in the county. With the opening of the Cayuga and Seneca Canal in 1828, which connected with the Erie Canal, traffic on the lake increased, and Myers became one of the regular stops for the steamships that carried passengers and freight from Ithaca to connect with the canal at the foot of the lake. In 1853 Myers is not clearly a hamlet, but there are two mills, on of which is identified as a saw mill, located on Salmon Creek near Myers Road. (Map 6A) Today Myers, which had a railroad depot and a few houses, has been transformed by gravel mining along the lake shore and by the construction of Myers Point (now Myers Point Park). (Photo 56-60) Ladoga Point (Photo 61- 62 & 64), immediately south of Myers Point Park, is another man-made peninsula, having ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource 1 Amendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 38 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heiglits and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY been developed as a park by Dr. William Barr to 1886. Seeking to attract visitors, he constructed a long pier that would accommodate the steamboats that carried passengers from one community to another along the lake. The park had a dancing platform, dining hall, 2 boathouses, 2 fountains, and was planted with elms, Today it is an area of cottages that line the lake shore. Norton's Landing is another small community on the lake'/z mile south of Myers. It appears on the 1853 map of Tompkins County. (Map 6A) Like Ladoga Point it was established to accommodate steamboats carrying passengers and local produce. There was a ' large dock and a warehouse. Portland Point, south of Norton's Landing, was originally called Kiplin's Point. (Photo 65-67) Norton's Point is how it is identified on the 1853 map of Tompkins County. (Map 6A) At that time there was a Lime Kiln and Drake and Conover's Storage located at Norton's Point. It is the location of the now abandoned Portland (Penn - Dixie) Cement Plant and the Cargill salt mining operation. A small village grew up a short distance away from the Portland plant. It had a post office, railroad station and houses for. employees. The extensive limestone beds in the.Town of Lansing had been used from the time of early settlement for the production of lime, but in 1900 the Portland Cement Company, founded by Sherman Collins, began operation at Kiplin's Point. The quarry was east of the plant site, the crushed stone being transported by tramway to the mill (Parish 1967:38). The cement works closed in 1947. In the same area is Cargill, Inc. salt mining operation. Salt was first mined on a large scale in the late 19a' century, when several local men obtained an option to land on the east shore of Cayuga Lake at the mouth of Salmon Creek (Selkreg 1894:347). In 1891, a 1,500' well was sunk that struck a vein of rock salt at least 30' thick. At the time that Selkreg was writing the base of the salt bed had not been reached. Royal V. Lamberson, Warren W. Clute and Arthur Oliver then organized the Cayuga Lake Salt Company, erecting a plant and warehouses. The following year they drilled another well, and, based on their findings, raised more money, enlarging their buildings and their operation. The purchase of improved equipment in 1893 permitted the manufacture of much larger quantities of high -quality salt that found a ready market (Selkreg, 1894:347). By that time they employed 100 men. Today the salt mining operation is part of Cargill, Inc. South Lansing, also known as Libertyville, is located at the junction of East Shore Drive (NYS Route 34) with Ridge Road (NYS Route 34B). It was, according to the historic marker located in front of the "Rogue's Harbor Inn", founded in 1792 by D. D. Miner, son of I General Miner, but other sources, including Pierce and Hurd's History of the History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins and Schuyler Counties, New York, indicate that the town was established in 1802 on the route of the stage that ran from Ithaca to Auburn (Photo 83). Initially the inn, ' operated by William Boice, was built of logs, but in 1834 that structure was replaced by the present building. The new hotel, known as the Central Exchange Hotel, was build by D. D. Miner. It was considered notable for being the first brick structure in the town. In 1853 Libertyville had several dwellings, the Central Exchange Hotel operated by George J. Lythe, a store, and, a short distance north on East Atwater Road, a schoolhouse (Schoolhouse No. 13). (Map 6A-B) It is possible that the small building located behind the Grange in South Lansing ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 39 Town of Lansing. Villaee of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY is that schoolhouse (Photo 82). The Stone & Stewart New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York shows a community consisting of 10 to 15 structures, including the ! schoolhouse, located on the north edge of the hamlet. (Map 7A-B) At the end of the 19th - C century the community, known locally as "Rogue's Harbor" had a post office, a grocery and a Al blacksmith shop (Selkreg, 1894). (Photo 80-86) Early in the development of the Town of Lansing, Jeremiah Sherger located his family in the eastern part of the town near the intersection of Asbury Road and North Triphammer Road. In 1880 a few houses, a post office, and a depot of the New York and Oswego Midland Railroad were clustered here, but the possibility that Asbury would develop into a full fledged community was lost with the failure of the railroad in 1889. By 1902 the post office had closed (Norris, 1944:39). The Asbury Methodist Church (Photo 87) is located on the southwest corner of the ' intersection. Various histories report that the first church built in 1797 was a to P g structure located at the east end of the Asbury Cemetery (established by 1794) across Asbury Road 'h from the present church. That church, according to a historic marker, was replaced by the -� second church, which was built in 1811, or, as other report, in 1814. Whatever the case, the church is named for Bishop Francis Asbury, head of the Methodist Church in America and ;.' one of the leading clerical figures of his time, who the marker states preached there in that 1811. i Our research indicates that the history of the Asbury Methodist Church is in some doubt. Although no mention is made of it on the historic marker, some local histories report that the second church was located next to the original log structure (referred to as the "Red ' Meeting House," which is said to have been east of the cemetery (Selkreg, 1894:341). The cemetery is located on the northwest corner of the intersection, so the original log church and its replacement would have been on the east side of North Triphammer Road, not on the site of the present church, which is on the southwest corner. The second question is in which structure Bishop Asbury preached? The historic marker suggests that it was the church currently located on the southwest comer of the intersection, but that church was reportedly _I built after the New Year's Day fire in 1844. If that is so, then this is not the church in which Bishop Asbury preached. To confuse matters further, some local histories indicate that Asbury preached in the log church "in the twilight of his life" (Selkreg, 1894:342), rather than in the 1811. Historically, none of this appears critical, but it may have an impact on the potential for historic archaeological resources within the proposed right of way for the C� wastewater improvement project. Historic maps do not identify Asbury as a hamlet or village in the Town of Lansing, but an examination of the 1853 map of Tompkins County indicates that, in addition to the Methodist Meeting House, there were several dwellings in the area as well as a number of businesses. (Map 6A-B) Present-day East Atwater Road ran at a diagonal between Libertyville (South Lansing) and Asbury Road, intersecting it just west of the railroad line (in 1853 the Lake Ontario, Auburn, New York Railroad). At that point there were several dwellings and a saw mill (on Gulf Creek, which enters Cayuga Lake at Portland Point). There was another saw mill east of the railroad., At the crossroads east of the railroad (Asbury Road tithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Proiect Area 40 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. NY and North Triphammer Road) the Methodist Meeting House and cemetery appear to -be located on the northwest corner of the intersection. On the southeast corner was another saw mill. Moving east along Asbury Road there was N. Shop's Mill, R. H. Humphrey's Shoe Shop, and another saw mill a short distance west of Benson Road. East of Benson Road, at the head of Warren Road, was Schoolhouse No. 19: South on North Triphammer Road at the intersection with Hillcrest Road was a carpenter shop operated by J. C. Egbert. On the southern boundary of the Town of Lansing was a small hamlet area known in the 196' century as Forest City. (Photo 122) In-1853 Dr. Burdick is identified as the owner of a property on the east side of the highway. This building is the cut stone structure included in Pierce and Hurd's 1879 History of the History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins and Schuyler j Counties, New York (See Fig. 8). Associated with Dr. Burdick was the Forest City Water Cure and -Ladies Seminary (See Fig. 9). That building was a large and complex structure ' standing several stories high, with a galleried porch and extensions at the rear. Forrest City appears on the 1866 map, when it had a post office. (Map 7A-B) Conclusion The route of the Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project was examined in a variety of ways: • First, the archaeological site files located at the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) were examined. The files identify the locations of reported archaeological sites within or in the vicinity of the project area. The results of this examination are included in the report. (See Table 1 & 10) • Second, the route was driven on two separate days and a series of photographs taken of houses more than 50 years old. The results of this examination are included in Appendix C. However, it is the conclusion of the consultant that none of the structures along the route proposed for the Ithaca Wastewater Program warrant listing on the National Register as individual structures. Additionally, along the majority of the route there were few areas where there were a group of structures that might be eligible as a district or, perhaps, in the context of a survey of, for example, Greek Revival houses in Tompkins County. One area that might contain structures that would be eligible as a historic district is Ludlowville; another is on Bush Lane. - - Third, historic maps for Tompkins County proved to be few in number, but L.- Fagan's 1853 Map of Tompkins Cozmty and Stone & Sewart's 1866 New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County were examined, along with David Burr's 1829 Map of the County of Tompkins. (See Map 6A-C, 7A-C & 5) To place the project area in a wider context, Simeon DeWitt's Map of Central New York (c. 1782) and an undated Map of the Military Land'and 20 Townships in the Western Part of the State of New York (Pierce & Hurd, 1879) were inspected. (See Map 4) • Fourth, in conjunction with the maps, histories of Tompkins County and the towns within the project area were examined. These histories, in some cases, provided Jithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource ADpendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background of Project Area 41 Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. NY insights into potential locations for both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites that might be present within the project area. • Finally, a number of reports prepared for areas in the Town of Lansing and surrounding community were read. (See Section III:3 above & Bibliography) As a result of these investigations, a number of sensitive areas were identified. They fall into several categories. With respect to the prehistoric archaeological sites, there are those areas where there are prehistoric sites reported in the OPRHP or NYSM archaeological. site files at Peebles Island, and then there are those areas where there are locally identified prehistoric site that are not included in the OPRHP or NYSM site files, finally, there are areas that are deemed sensitive on environmental grounds. In organizing the material, the project area was divided into several areas. These areas received designations and are labeled Area A-V. The level of sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological sites was then discussed in terms of these several areas. Table 4, which outlines the known prehistoric sites and assesses the potential for unknown sites within each designated area, is a compilation of this material. Additionally, the sensitivity of each of the proposed locations of the pump stations is identified in Table 3. Turning to the historic archaeological potential, the same designated areas are used. In order to identify potential historic archaeological sites, historic maps and local histories were examined. The results of this examination are included in Table 4. t._ The survey of the historic structures located in the project area is addressed.in Appendix C. As noted above, structures were grouped into several categories: 1) . structures more than 50 years old that had sufficient architectural integrity to be considered as individual structures for nomination to the National/State Register, . . 2) structures more than 50 years old possessing architectural qualities that, while not eligible as individual designations, appeared to meet the criteria for listing on the' National/State Register, perhaps in the context of a small historic district (portions � of Ludlowville) or multi -resource survey; _ 3) structures that .were 50 years old, but lacked architectural qualities that would make them eligible for listing, ' 4) and, structures that were less than 50 years old. With few exceptions, only structures that were more than 50 years old and possessed architectural merit were photographed. These were primarily 19`h century structures. Those photographs will be found in Appendix C. Based on an examination of the photographs, it does not appear that any of the structures qualify for nomination to the National/State Register as individual structures. It is possible that several structures may be eligible on the basis of history, and it is possible that, particularly in Ludlowville, a small historic district might be identified. However, it is not considered that the proposed project will have any impact on the architectural integrity of any of the structures identified. itliacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource APPENDIX B MAPS & FIGURES itliacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants MAP & FIGURE LIST MAPS Map 1: Project Area (from map provided by Chazen Companies, Inc.) Scale on map. Map 2: Project Area (from map produced by Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce) Scale on map. Map 3: Map of Counties of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y. (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) Scale: Enlarged, no scale. Map 4: Map of Military Tracts in Western Part of New York State (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) Scale on map. Map 5: David H. Burr's 1829 Map of the County of Tompkins. Scale on map. Map 6A: L. Fagan's 1853 Map of the County of Tompkins with Northern Portion of Project. Enlarged scale: 2" = 1 Mile. Map 6B: L. Fagan's 1853 Map of the County of Tompkins with. Southern Portion of Project. Enlarged scale: T' =1 Mile. Map 6C: L. Fagan's 1853 Map of Ludlowville. Enlarged, no scale shown. Map 7A: Stone & Stewart's 1866 Map of the County of Tompkins with Northern Portion of Project. Original scale: 1'/z " = 1 Mile. Map 713: Stone & Stewart"s 1866 Map of the County of Tompkins with Southern Portion of Project. Original scale: 1'/z " = 1 Mile. Map 7C: Stone & Stewart's 1866 Map of Ludlowville. Enlarged, no scale shown. FIGURES Fig. 1: Known Prehistoric Sites in Tompkins County. (from Parker, 1922) Scale on map. 'Fig. 2: Distribution of Paleo-Indians Components & Fluted Point Finds in the Northeast (taken from Ritchie, 1980: Fig. 2) Scale: none shown. Fig. 3: Location of Some Important Sites. ..of Archaic, Transitional & Woodland Stages (taken from Ritchie, 1980: Fig. 4) Scale: none shown. Fig. 4: Map of the Old Indian Trails in Tompkins County (taken from Norris, 1944). Scale: none shown. Fig. 5: Residence of Benson Buck, Esq. East Lansing, Tompkins County, N.Y. (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) ;t itlhacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Fig. 6: Fig. 7: Fig. 8: Fig. 9: Fig. 10 Fig. 11: Fig. 12 Another View of Residence of Benson Buck. East Lansing, Tompkins County, N.Y. (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) Residence of Ira Wyckoff. South Lansing, Tompkins County, N.Y. (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) Residence of I F. Burdick, M.D. Lansing, Tompkins.County, N.Y. (from 1879 Histories of the Counties of Tioga, Chemung. Tompkins & Schuyler, N.Y.) Forest City Water Cure & Ladies Seminary operated by Dr. Burdick. (Vignette from Fagan's 1853 Map of Tompkins County, N.Y.) Approximate Location of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Vicinity of Project Area. Scale on map. Approximate Location of Historic Archaeological Sites in Vicinity of Project Area. Scale on map. Location of Photographs (See Appendix C) ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ♦ � i ♦Fi, "err ,.. �' 1.�.f "�ily �+r.���x'., �d'.��,f O WON. `£1 ,fit t s' �, . -,,� .i • : ����,� sfif ' �►., ' ,-'sv �,�`�� .. �. W—io, do t yy C� ,�_•'Y �i C t • .�--`• \ � , .��� '-'ate i � � � ,�t` s .-`Li, { � '!'yid . t� e"�'�� i' •' za 5 ) � ITV •A. ._ . r- / t ,' \ ' �A ,Ir �•� - _ �J� OI�15eF 1 eA. r c • r y -� 1 ^ / a. . � 1} •'fit, .' >' •r Y . + 1 - 1'ma trs,�SI- C , eR.'40' •, r S d.1 sSl` yE i' �. `r ° MO1N y �. °. +' '�• { - �i gym. y+ ... � I i '„ ""_•+.. ;) �, '�. ��#�<i47y �.R F,rin �W.v r',� r2 .. `: F�]:• r.k iiazl .... _ � 1 }' ,```'t. � ''„' � �t'r�."p•w�ry�o R:y, I I `IFtr� �'i.,,r�l' r ,i"^, ■ e°• �' .`v }>�m �yw r'.(�, -:ll�� 11 d i� � li '`i' ix}i�ls. C [ yh ,\:r. ° _I�r •*un.,4�x1-}s d+ } !l„����«t 1 4•� Z}v,�l t .71 v ,r k� I{3 ,, yl /. '�r, t � "y n ')�;io„ 'k �3,�•`�;,ry �t c, l �I b i^�t�+-,�Jr � x I - - 1 :1 rV'AT EFI. Ti ! } .#r'") k. 1A, y; }A+� x5'f u ,,� i tiff [t iyy • � . ` ' - - ` '� d •k{I � p. TC �{•' lil i� �1t %u I f.- h -F Wy" ' � �'n t :T k '1 AIN MAP '�� ii r' y' .) s x� g''�9�-' Stdj,,r"' k,•�1,oM� �Ih��' ' WF i^�' �jy'T - .:�.::. q w� ' "°1 � J.i{ �^el -sVA A .,±{tt - n°•I llr I ��b:. ! {' 3 z� • :L�l ,}'iR 'zx". �,Aa + a4> rYv '' y *1 t 1 a l ! J� �� , .�• ..., -� � 1 �:li�'. „... fM1h IY. tt� �,,I`t�+K'r 3ti:�1 r, � �i �.1�1u• � t tom..+.s ��f+J��d..n °. ul hS1,%y '� t� ," ylity f7P. _ ili`I�I PO .. V,IA' � , I' s 'is�k1 Z�y� p I'i i 1 - I yl 4 f {iM74 _I' ilt. i i �Sc� •i xr i„,,,,,��trlrtr �i .r t 1 � z"��Y�� � t I I' I t k- 'Cfi� . - I �a t \9�ty `I�•'rYs 1 ?° . _ Yaw'+�i:. e +� S .tt4T ±8 ;�' �'?4{ • + - ! }- iEE / 1 � y � ` 4� �r �� i •`� a }� e � �1�I A vl aO fro my � ar.lxd F �r�I/y ■ 1 �• _ .A! /st�'1 1 � '�, t�f +rF'` gr ••ScM �,`� * t',.1: ��i,�'�5 �• ;F� ��yL i . 1 +I� e�}{� a �,1„�`7 rt �r>-�nsi �'' i'�-t'^F��Y �.• - 9F rl `U� - !� V ,,.; ' t{{ FFs rs� rv+. I L- , j � � • Lr `1 � � �c �1 .+11 I " .,+ ''sty - J , �7 ]1I�1iY' x1 4�1 ��l s:�r, �9��rFy� �i� .aelrrn� � ;'•,•, \r47,r�!fr'4't�14AFaj`R1'1i545^ltij�j64n�.Q.,7� 11 i ``. (may 7 r �kY )V� •�7l[ �^ ,S`i � k{4^�+yrt-z f'kpks��t2<S�'Y�+nr��gl �i r` ,[ ®, "Jd '1 � � f� A^Y�j�■L .'�.'1.7 I iA{l.%tL1 !tiy'.�f�TYt,),(��� �- _ > iu °/ �+•15, �I✓ l'i■ rSk11.*ikl • �' I. '^ ,.. i`{ A, - a � �Kl� I�ad ��t `Y{. tii{-�AF �1rf�iP.d id^'r ,� y[`� F ; �1 -•4 : F 1� �' i '�{ I�.Ii��d' .1Zil� �_ �t`s� �ai`�` \�f'Fl ° It >Fr .+>,1`I�{g+a '1 �' - - _ . •LP _ , 3 . I`• � �� 1 i : i;�'�t-,a��4■111'^ tom. "':aF�� �a $' )b �#�/'' _ , I ,, , ,, yt�,,•j a-r _'LJr- _. -. ..-----' -�- - ', '71�Li a = J,IIp/f/' 1't1 !yj V �I 1 r' � E i3r j,� .��ei, hYf" - F' � � r��•,t�11� '`ri �` ICI.. r, i _ i�, �' ��� ►ice=�+�� �'{ max_ .. - ' � .Y.y d[ ` � 1�• 1.•w 1£i•r t 1 t ,,,,:• �� - C ..r.'u,Ai�36 3 - 1 J'. � A� fir' _ - ; � a , '?t� .v,L�: ��'�'I�i`� �•. e^ 4 1 y;, 7 lam ,ri VA.t t i � ��R' ��� - r � +u�.' ram, •§s � � I rL �(�' � AA� ^ •. ,.. i� � A• �'�yqa� ��;?„�rt;:' •'� .1 .•�•'"t fi �• - nn - TnAP II'AA�I •F^ ' I II I� ' ' e I■ i , - . •CIIOU2= OrC ROGA, GHEMUNt; MMPI M MS SCMIMM A .•PATES" COUNTY Ty one p 'ja% we � 1 S H y7-0 p�'�1iVATN j 0 fa O // I§I Or ` � � i�!`" S )p U, m �. • +�:. Q i t + IY. tJ rGLJR riJO[.: ' } - 1 0 •• Lansi,�ey SENECA_COUTY '"! _ �' • li.•trrvniu ty.v-/..ar o _•r �1: '•I.url. Jtt•1' li:rJt-.1' J•. •� �rrtnr I t• �y ` k •t C ' �. L7lit:r 1' 1' %` X SUoNrlir� C I , ,"^ \rmglnnia� \ �,4 ll /1rVt� n ` -I% Viral elntri/��. L� 1 \' [.' S ;i /iinul 'sLr • f'r'rrt r/lr r �`lrrdrn Q %n/k {. II`Jlrr+(retry � l{� .�r�•(rn6artg bn%rrlrl + ` '~!•• ';rr .��i�I,nt' -IX Iiy/ter` /ir lrii,rvutt i ` 'r /Drluirll vlrUl'q i .` rriLke• =. e-. J7 ' L� f'tr(ri(rl rrn .y11 F. r`a•r'''.• %/G,acj_.__.•�_... - - ----Tr �---y. !}rt.ufn1 /runr.vntr/or / , ,K t.rrrrdrar ~' t r' 11 r r1 I• (�� r'.rJri .1�H'!i;•/r/ - A 1i/r l:t•eil.• ` I Il�m/v It. �rrrn+/Inrr�n 1 r;i:l ll('� l' \� 1 �:f\l• 1 [1 �• �" R. rYr Ott �1� it 1 t �l -- -- �- ---- , , 1 lirlresrr .__ RrnnrJ (/dl t j$� .ii�N►1! + l� t l [ t 11' ! 1 y\ tt t re 1i r•. I }c sit 1 i (' /lrrrr%t{/� t/ { Z__ /rrr' wag"" r'r• /- L t 7iil�ltam 1- a ' n , / • t ' f'�__._� �• i R rt �t (.ru+rin.rbrr 1'r�tnr/ ` t s e r pwn 1 k Pr nr ' Firll;t►• %� w' ; i/ru/a t'onr/nr/i u { \i+/.•rartl 'rf• rt t o Ill riiftr(.r. T•urrri i� 11 1[ rl u'.L 1a-•.tiit�rsdnit � t r � E; 1•, toll ..j. = _ ? /_ T r f. /a'nrtX `� - E` f fir_ . ��-•�• As- IT OP S Pad Q' I(rr�ef,rrrt 7 ( _ _ -- �:_-- •�tl�_rtndar� I i r _ ( - - r t.. - -�- mil- i 2 7Er11.: - t Xa(a.t 1-a1; +frntyh(t(nr.. w tli�l/rl.i.,' `�Jr i __-_ - •_-•-T --r--__-_ •_--t .>>' .v,AEar(nn. ' ./.•n.(•..5-r//.• OW F-G' Or' ,• , Ttoyat}n rbr L Ch P L1 LI ��, Barton ` '�•� Itlurht+m � � `� + 1 � 3�•• ?Baldrrrn a Annendis B:- Mans & Figures -- . — - Man 4: Map of Military Tracts in Western Part of New York State (from 1879 History o� the Counties... ) Scale on maw .. �.r.� _••.:-__:�:--_•.,__ by � . rA MAP OFT E'&.jp� r •''4fi s fir MILITARY CA'NDS AND y� : j ZO TOwNSHiPs 1N THE "3.+•E } ! ���" ' WESTERN PART Of THE � �5T0 • j • ( , 1 //rr•u l n 1 V J y ! a Ir. I r`r . :ra>>� µ•pp /:. Gorillas f !t �' I iq� n .4•rr �� �.rrrrr„x t .•a• - -- Onrpu%n ! Oarirlrr t . 1 %. J" liao - u..1/i' I _ 11 yeve"ithim ! �•' •.�fn•nrwr _o,;:.-:� �.. •� •�, !1 Iliaal•nn/ia� .n A, ,ty.:.y --__-- fip► i l -- �: Xn^rn6a- 1, }p,,rnF i Il ulltrtw! Z-9 i •`^ - /'nrr rl/�•. � ^/•. .�//r'Ili�nru[/• __� � r . l�C� a ra L•r �a5• + j `'Al2 RE ?• i - 1 �;�� /' • +.. •� 1%A'rGYJ�• I��-11•tiJ fli r I !/rvlr r• I'itw1.4 +xe • ;~s.J i��iT Fro Ae F • Y1'ci 1I ` 2. Wits 4' I t Iti�I�in 'f7in I fi ii_ _ ;oToJrrr.ahrPs -- r'Linlon. 19 � Is Torn yPasrW V FIS. mnrlIn- to s rrrf rntfCl"fnmrr _ �, PNXSYI,VAVfA LINE M. 4 Trna lbin/, SCALE lie MILES,10 TO AN INCH. d I ithacala, CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Auaendit B: Maus & Figures Mau GA: L. FaRan's 1853 Atian of Tompkins County, New Fork with North Portion of Project. Enlarged scale: 2" = 1 Mile. ,.„n•, r•e n• �T}T"R}li -m Ope ip ••,.q,r.�. �1,•T„,il' I�r7,•ie.•i nhivata , ii. , n , ' <rrflrrir' , frharrll '�.t�'`!/n/i c a • �..�,- --��- M 7D �,� ' .i/yui►•v �r iL-:_; . _ ' IPn�r 022 J. f/I1�/rt' { � . • --A..ffnrJ� I� /�f/ten/lo6o%�I � J./.ud1�/s•i;'ry t JB 11.16rG41r II _ t rrq/asr+ �'/rnsLrrq �o l8ok%P�• •1 'rlr ,'" -�'. .hl r✓lorfi[ • - r �u f ,rli(11-r(In,s,� [�o�►c�,r,`.; �,out�°1r Il Bt its ! .�%O I• /� i J ' 0 r-10� `�-1 �-•�� .j7ll/l%111/ �. • pis .��'//IIF'P/'•�.�1 � '': /1 �!—'---.. - �.`.l�- r�7r•� Ae •7./!/ P /, Jrh[ I ` ( ; f1c�lJJ/lnir�ay�• J•f �� ,,: $� /, n (' r" c, �� k ✓.1ya. ; ■ P 6ravr.Alb? 1111me 'I'C.Jp<ri�v .1 �/y J. _ -� `y►� �� y ./5wr�r.J�� � . • • • '' 13�".�T$� �QeGJlir: y _ ��. c� �� �pi4t�1•` ` xb'.j ��..•t `.p Trlrr(/1rk �, M c !L/W -.r P %r(!r.. O0'; - ----- -- — - -1 --- - ft_7'Y7W,Iaj ;14(yeln, •i .`,�� \ }fyrilyf, `�1�i�r�U���%r��{yyi, • �' - - • - ✓%/f//!%/l i /' 'il;�• _ .Y.1 Twpl'var h' If, 49,01 %if�((� f .; " �• . //v '3 , 1 1,! rr iir; _ .7J'l -!r.///. r .f 1rJfz _ 1: '�7' ✓..tfi! �I�• •T� ✓[ /'lli oyrn ... ✓..IlBirla,il�j�lFi.rti!! 'd A,H7.,l./_ /- •.�'�% • `:..__ .il�rrlrrlu�.K � r'''1f� �' : � �� H.� f, � .: �' /iir,{ ��srtwar' +�t•& Z' ili r/i�r: . - :` . _ ,. � ; lurlFJi! G.'U DTIIl�'� � �•//�:+• till - a �':.r� • -- -' � •k- /o!/Urr�,�f�rmz�,-rN' ...:.. - • -- •---jr-� I�,�1� r - ib'0 rSl r y',�a�r��rir jj + at W. �!/!U!1'�l! ,lI _ \��. •f •\, �/ • � / � •\ ��_iA KA,�. ' �'r f .F,,i �fl,l i{,�j��(�jti�+Ji j� �•y�. , t.f� j �ev f �7 •ti+"� r�'',;.`� a S !lljj `/' `;�` .•�/" I�+ }.y''1�'i .',•,��iC �jr+j l!/v:.,• t+r,•,/.t'/tnr,'�l�lr'��tL �I 1 JIM ,. � _ -_ �Yop/rnJ' �7rv�; r. lRli,,f�C ;�'' jr,n .�- . L• � t►rp��1r! �i - '�/r' .i• i :1"%r •• �� li�ir�if�r//�' la!!/ e {!"7Prt/rr!- - -rn fix• il•. u•. iY .. .I....Yt+... di.�Ko ,i• J.7 Appendix B: Maps & Figure"s UP6B: L. Fagan's 1953 Dian o T� ins Cotrn Ne" York (SoutUern Portion of Proieetl Enlarged scale: 2" = 1 Mile IA ,i !;'Writ/��� i/�t.f •>/1.J%n:.: r� ` - 7 ,04 1Pt!!'[ll[i� ,illl/I a, T%/.1%I/�• �' ..1. /,lt iislt r�;/i ,xh 7 6,k izrn!/' +%lr.1 /, flf�rr �.� ` •��i' �i°ti p /� • /li!/vt•/ittP � _ �w ,,//,lrr•t �•/I Y u ./. /AM ` 4emelrrr Op IN /J4 Xf tywa- NN f� . '.iJj lir�L6/rtt!/aiirl I •.r�»uti/ii� . _ Lriiirr�rtrt•ry Orr' /.!/ /lf//: i!' J/ - ____ � is !'/i %! •,/!t�'i CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ithacala' �--� ®'• me rt• - ('� fi.anr PrAfahroll �a� P �� �. s • 11 . d � • �r. t �_ •��\�lti' � `^: •' ,•� :���' � � p .Tno.Baird©: 7iiirr %d 5� • ;� �L `1 + "�nir f y� fir= ., W16 o A lei ` 1 .i: ::t� y - - — • .' : �a �1. _a ... _ b4.` a. Carl�[ttyyEAmi )re p Q ®® >c• b. X Ifuid.Grwerry �® ,1%�� ® A�11GelXri �J.[roQZl c; .Ifiv n��s �• r rw J�Ott � C4 {�� fl6e u� r 00 Poatc + i - iL .1'etvtoai�+atcs>:1.i7u Unn .Ban�TiN 1 c�I'm hN.mill �rrrruryi's y ��:� overCA tit --- cn � c. n o rey y N Appendix B Maps & Figures ' Map 7A: Stone & Stewart's 1866 If ofTonmki►!s Colultt/ New fork. Original scale: 1'/z' = 1 Mile. �.� �— __ __ - 1 I .1 r• I, '�i S 11 r I I I I I• `I 1 1 •, 1 q . . • .11itr4ell8F • i:.L:ri`, . -�- : .: e. +"!• .-..,� � ;.r - J' ✓�. } t7k JGsr �.a„rti� i.i.5s+�!ieJ'• 't-,7"- � ,r ds� `bra R+.v+t'J'. I '(�retatt'r„'Lf'S .1:.K,JJ4' ' • Is. j ;/ 1 � o J rcl.r;.r ` � 8�S`rsE"• - ?f ', ,�,,,•' fit! R a. a►w,.p. 'I - ..� L :• ; . Lj 1 C..ttw.trr �.41.vrirr !J r��•i l 6Sw r• ?7i • `-sT. , .. j t l Arws J. 8l= S LJ_R - .: .,. i 7)S�r-,/.,• J.S £u.J,t P-JMLt/•- _ fs f s. ._.` J� I J.xerrle! s h'" ." SO ' LAKE: gr■ID J[fr.jnl.+.+/ is )�.. ,� � � ' �)'-s,,.- � n✓-Iad,ba( /A/i /,...�`'*fftr �' taarr.r• P V•J Z.... t E .� v-`� jl �� ` C .�—ss+t� �.• r Ix pa �•r• or Ir 11RTlI 'JAL / t ,u�.s ,f yr r �t9� +' i'. ©• r - r r e+" �d1�''i,' MJ , x r j'{� • /� ' ,� �" /!ry,. • 4.^.rdr,�I�i�, •�J. i' .•�7T`'p•v 7 ■11t',' i • •11'Dn• .1•� 'J' t� .•%JI.JrsdrM6.- r• ...t♦ • ♦ -r -•: �J.Be.n-r• e•� / I4/.. r {+I • *S. r, 1tt• L �r •'f'� R' �`� C Ii..«rr • -' .It,wilfrw •Y I ice" ,prl'�,�•I••- .S'i't •''1(t��s4 nir•A•nr� +"'•�Y� At- iALJr/fca-. - � J O.%r.rrq � •,f./.ywa•IIR' a•A M /. AinRn •►� ,� , !�J ••• •, � �. x1M1Y•r• ,,, • \�I. Lnr«ub.•: AJJ,l6rwi/Iw _ _s, •• i - - .6..«.. • F,r.•r : ` '• J/r�r'r�.nl,rr + 1L:<6.br•e• •` S.i" J,i .•■r' JJlYnder pr�rt i7 ulrH. J8 r r .11r• 1. Cl/• ' •r,4 �?i .� • � �._ . gJ• yu J N.I:,rr- �.. * rGr. • ry. Rr n ,YZL / rr •u.5. .rrl 4 ` lbAfitii VIi.T.i''� j�• !F• P•p•, , ' �<,,,, riff --i M/r. "Oro - ! -�..r �d `�e�!{ •j�.i�. "�r- -� Ii�.Y/IrrxF'• _�i� ri' .ii�Ji•w Y.Ilbni ... r✓r,., • / •. �al.l! ` X .I.N.7M1rrllrll •�. - 1�,,r' .i+,'. t'r•.•' ,,I.1 RJ A.. .'.f.N..:.. . ��Qy •,�•J./!«,r+J/il�/. r •A!!/rn./.•r ~•Haab r:,.,,Y tJf:7b.•jrNl . 7 / M• tt•l - '•, �' �'�1..W.rw / fl.nr,/N / .Y Yrrv.Irv,J/.$� /J. ••• uM Mllf •• _� - r y� - • - _ rw..rrr n. H..r», ../, t�...r en a' yJ/,e �•�.,1 • ,,,.. • ' , 6LtiHe L., ■". /P.P Jrrrvdu �,+, `+V' _ _J, •/:J..,Ib ■Xr•F..r..r. � 8.[N /I. nlr/1�..y.i''� � �� /' - (� oil. ri J� A 1 I ✓ . ri / /J W. Krrrli . /. /l.r•ne f+/r' A. WWA . - f •• M •'.rr.r.., •.tI J:'r. �� 1 >y, �ib.r.B3+wr. fi / fl�/ .•• ••�••rr�•�•f ... .(rn „�.N � A.AAN'jrhs= K^J•nr...«n�\ /'. A•.r'.r • II1tr,"'"•� Lrji •+i ce -TrJj _ •KJ. /r..Lr \, ♦ r w,., 11,••A dcr«ri.r '• �"'} • r Y 7Mr � • t. --■r� ,I. N. l ra •� . `; .vr - , � r: //tllrr _ � �,•. - I-- - tr. t •.t L...II..,• �.tl..t...•r..• •ylV!+.q. f •yG-I+i.it• 1/f. .� i � _ •E'A..i. .�N1•• ••.`_ trr,ryl'I -� :}w..r. i � AlLit * 1 -- /:..r./s, r•-v- .tC�H/r., 't M1 � ty."'�+ - �r2Jar.•Jr...., / � •'h'�+.,ti^ yy/ �• � O tJ./ r'♦♦i...�. J i♦ 1 I � _ _ .�• �.I. H)..rfra I .1 J r ' J4 �il j1 r r t`pd•• J:A I"a•n.....•• .bM.. .r...,.�}y� h •)tL� ,I,b' (�,N�+, /::l AA'.�r',: • .•+rwr •♦ E - ' IF •N...r ff— i p , - • • p >_. . r�L�ytS, �•- . /�'• 'c.,... '/!/ it i. Y•� '%! r pJ rc.rr//rrDi •v+.u:/r. ar 'Y _ f•S F: l.AW1:INa , 1• i J.:r'.,rhl3t r R-r tp,r1 .r�g I ,ds 1 11 PI) L 1p' r� r 'r• 1. N.('I,+wA• t Ct 1<� : �.• d f..9,1•rr . {I r %� ,.�?'�dCl , I,rl�' t F.'lJvr■ � �+•r� nr Y /'ra. ,� .11.Ixlirr � r r _ . _ . . _- - ...-_. _... •. _'"_ _ Nr. rr�-_..! .: t. r j_-.[I'•I _.C� /� .ly •p•11• { • � \*S Ih O',6,Ir►n' :: t ' 1t rh' �f {�•_ r. J.mvn{• I �.i �`.y`,/.l®,.•r•r• � {� 1�f'+r • ;!<'''.Y.)Irls�Tr•� �` r1• f• t S � �a . �¢ I p, .�• �a.•r' �4/r j' �Ikrr'''' j•D.IJ •N.q,el t � j � t d.J/alw+l ■ rd ,•,•a• r �3• ' ¢4' , "ei:'� y. ,� .� ' ! •� J/ .i•� --,�� _/ .�. Ft �,�r,•r� .r7 Hw.�r i _ . A: II'I7a � • � •� 9� „ oi' - r, w+/•`i. .r. ./. rb�� err n...r, ' • "+�: ■ �4. •1, �^' �• is /!r•rh• ? ' 1 J. • i _v `•�-dam- •,• /•• d. //. II�A.L �... - 'L 11 •'"'' � .. I W. w..i fl ...... I' r r.trnf fr•" .: &:•- _. .... — - - .. .. _ �. ..__ ll: A./.rJ .I.' , I - - of '< - .rr��L••• w,4� �,.s/�,fi �_�_ .. sJ.4'erlrr � /./'.S/rrr/n:7 •��,J�rA. Ili�/nfr.�/.Ti....Iv�` .nr' •' t:.d'irnr..srm i X.. 86 s •��.•II . �y.4• �d. *s.11•'� /�Jrr/t.+r ' A k, �� srµ• ., .4L - � ' Ceh/lrsl w.nn•.••. K,• i .'�' � r.,!q I `�' r r` 1r9•,1 �'' ti M.Mr•L�1 /iq � •1- � f7 l:7T..r•rr/ry 1 rry-„� • 3 .._ - - •� �♦ _ /. � ,p.(ti!lrrfr• 6 ''J• I- : f: rlhnvry." ''� /{rdN , . r' h 41 41 I •'•" .`` 011.rrvm« I/.i•'H/ien� -i .l%dub%IM � U � _ ryI W. I rare �� JK•.anr, �� .Gd/•rrYb'nn •: rl; � /L//r.r///.•a 1 ' '' ■ • n 1 ro Y � Y I Y Y. .. .. I : , ,,.. n u ' Annendi.Y B: Mans & FiRwes Mao 7B: Stone & StewaWs 1866 Map of Tompkins County, Mew York. Original scale:I %z Inches = 1 Mile leaq�,.d..� i•s�F,.t,t `� a� 01 r• YtG.i/. � Aa.wy T. Aff'o"kin ' FORE C orgy.. lldr+dier.kn. J.larx � f� J.drr $ Q ..Li1v'a4^ 97 • •1.Geer lair- A • -•pia;• �q� j 11� ` � Y7�B4ts7u C6adva. X!0 .' L I+' I j f � , � ; � 1 � , � i\, (1 t �•�-�' .' J tea^ ��*��� lit f f\`� , . : • 1 _ ! T W • A J..7�ea. 49 • �{'• �X .C..ZL/tdr7�RJ'�• 1%•/.�COv�DL72� ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants a I-jUD-LOIffl� L �' t /'. 7,01"r lr. r :: .1/Ir.rarl L�r+(linr.s .flu,•w lltN,rryrl,r Xiti..3%unr• X we l;;rt ►w �r � I.�.III /Alm CD /l.1/rirJlnnr -� fl dtMF 00 r�Is Aravu/.. _ T� ON y"!JYtir�cr•� R o sG �.c rr�.s� � �i {e tic �•�r� -, . . ip .lib �aJrr�fuM u�I drr�n^rKh f��'�r�r� f 1/ F'lw►'b' A Mae CD toto f�' Appendix B: Maps & Figures Fie. 1: Known Prehistoric Sites in Tompkins County (from Parker, 1922) Scale on map Nubia le - • Drydvn vrc7& v n *Applegate. arna E N F I E L D o :- *Enfield Cemtjr.T . Ellis os u Enfield Falb,`r�s a 9 esjmer •Trumbul I Cur er `\ a ervi ll Spry nos Ni na line �- Newfield?, . *Dan:; " �aroline�Depot CARDLI.WE NEWFIEL_D 3a DAN BY s W Danby White Church oJacl:son •S.Danby 5pe ilia Scale of Miles ` O _i j...- 3 h ~5 6 7 TOMPKINS COUNTY 1 ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 2 ro d I l a � • Locus of flu ` fD o Approximate of fluted I OPaleo-Indior comps 1 Shoop h7 �j 3 2 Reagen �• _••_.._ , 3 Hull Brook R, 4 (?) Davis y 5 Potts 6 (?) Wapanucl 7 West Athens BKings Rood (. 9 Part Mobil 1 0 •� o t , 1 I o ° i i • � cu � H a a all Figure A V -- .......... -Lake Iroquois. (Coleman, 1936, Mop No.45f) Related Ica front (ibid.) Champlain Sea, maximum extent pD (Chapman, 1937, Fig.5) ' i �Port Huron(?) moraines - IQ(Flint stal,1945;Muller, 19601 Mo. Unlock and Terosmae, l96 .Ni Fla.l) 15 In 1 •I r � r • 1D A'' Fifute 4 Locations of soma Important sites referred to In the text of the Archaic, Transitional and Woodland stages. i Lamoka Lake, 2 Geneva, 3 Woodchuck Hill, 4 Lawson, 5 Ross and DI Santo, 6 Robinson, 7 Oberlander No. 1, 8 Frontenac Island, g Wapanucket No. 6, Mass., io Donavan ( Vergennes), Vt., 11 KI, Vt., 12 Bannerman, 13 Lotus Point, 14 Wading River, 15 River, 16 Bent, 17 Haffmaris Ferry, 18 Isle La Motte, Vt., 19 Collins Bay, Out., 20 Picton, Ont., 21 East Sugar._ 54, Sea Breeze, 55 Kipp Island, 56 Jack's Reef, 57 Felix, 58 Menard Bridge No. 1, 5g Durkee, 6o Plum Orchard, 61 Point Peninsula, 62 Bay -of Quintd, Ont., 63 Brock Street, Ont., 64 Port Maitland, Ont., J55 Huntdrs Home No. 1, 66 Bluff Point, 67 White, 68 Tumbull,,6g Willow Tree, 7o Pillar Point, 71 Lakeside Park, 7a Levanna, 73 Sackett, 74 Caleb. 75 St, Helena, 76 Willow Point (Clark and Palmer), 77 Wilber Lake, 78 Hilltop, 79 Castle Creek, 8o Bainbridge, Island, Ont„ 2a Snook Hill, 23 Weir, 24 Vedder, a5 Old Place, 26 Piffard, 2.7 O'Neil, 28 Orient No. i, 2g Orient No, 2, 3o Jamesport, 31 Sugar Loaf Hill, + 32 Stony Brook, 33 Baxter, 34 Solecki, 35 Muskeeta Cove, 36 Lake Montauk, g7 Wray, 38 Oberlander No, 2,39 Vinette, 40 Pickjns, 41 Muskaionge Lake, 42 Hunter (Red Lake), 43 Morrow, 44 Mverhaven No, % 45 Vine Valley, 46 Long Sault island, 47 Rosencrans, N.J., 48 Canoe Point, 49 Wickham, So Squawkie Hill, 51 Lewiston, 52 Cain S3 Rector, - I 81 Carpenter Brook, 82 Jack's Reef No. a, 83 Maxon -Derby, 84 Hunter's Home No. 2, 85 Bates, 86 Enders, 87 Snell, 88 Bell-Philhower, N.J., 89 Sebonac, go Soak Hides, g1 Squaw Cove, ; 92 Conklin, 93 Wells, 94 Old Lyme, Conn,, 95 South Woodstock, Conn., 96 Bowman's Brook, 97 Wilkins, t 98 Cmntvllle B. gg Clasons Point, too Finch Rock House, 1o1 Helicker's Cave, 1oa Oakfield, 1o3 Kelso, 104 Oak Hill, 1o5 Chance, 1a6 Getman, 107 Cayadutta, 1a8 Otstungo, jog Garage, J - a WCD `, of • it .. _�� 1? r-' EA Q 1 � r• 1 0.4 ry 1 y fy 1 ♦ 1 1 M p1 .� A� rl � t� 1� b� p r.. y ` in PV • n w `=1 J - -- --_ - Wit ¢7 • _ Coll ,,r — �O .�. Y U o .. _ _ C O ��U N •f Y _ p. .... \� e (�'roton O rn •rF v �.. SING v OLD ENDEAN 'pudlovvillr I o I r 9 6ENECACOUNTY t� ,_ N -z antb4ry Q �%% D ply TRAMS I CFkei:°6„°° k�r��`.ti, � `'t u r •�~ �.9.r� 1 Z y _ � � � �e•n1Jr 1 O COUNTY �T� ~� :r �l�• 1Y. D JL L1�7 I Sfiorufn Aber' Inal Occupatfon, urifh the IndianJYamasofsomrSfreeinq I1 Z` ]Kt �'•1 •••'•�• VX.,- Vi cr es and.Localifiw indicated. Z �� Cor.orJon.J� •�nto;�r'�"o •'••.� ` .— � 1t ""�' �egend 1. i cast °s91 rr, C �ci .�.... 11 4 few �L, a 1'. �. Z Village Site A Indian7rails -•-- Kr.+t ;° S•n '°^f• sa••• } _ 4`" k; _ Cam Site X Traces of Occu ationw% •••— — — — r � ` Gn p P �, ShNgAcro .rq� cry ; SrooktondAs L Me" Burial Sifp U Fortified Village i I �, CoroJon• q all O�Ygc w n. 1 ��,, q., ..� •-.,y J ( J1(eorfFald. LI• ` I .til.� l� J� lil uc. ®�JL LV JLi c�'y'j +!• " `Fm- A.'r'fian6�/Carolino nf.+.ate��S r CRnby j"' T I CA COUNTY I t - o S�•nur{� i••• W. Q.Norri. it" 0 IT, TA w�st:'•n �` rlt��-': - � � rif I "ter ���t \ f.R},� �.:: •• fri �0. III Y�t�Y' �i�I, `., � r fr N: rnxa R .A •. � , ..a `� tF/j�!;!� ' ; Y ti � i' •• ,• * "' ° t + M ,r. r.;+, a 't:� °' t t ' ;s'.r '- � 'fir` �� F•til2 �.,' �,`;+v r� ��Irs •�•+ •�• ��:� tf•,1 i.v .J'•✓ �.�i•4 +•�I•+ aj :r, •".' } � r('•�I" � J.: t �f.'td iCV - c }, + t��1 .. r"H ;.K i .. .' ~ i y 'n} ar ltt• • .,;45* G'4a+.y'!lt" �4^n. �..� y y � .� ' ,' • •,{, �i' j , i')ti�.7'i►, , . r.. `•' �•.it„ F' ?�Y ^l •'}' % ♦ • r �. si . � y Ali h . + aC::. - •:a+!n:, - � .n. r � ~ .ate .. � . •..it'4'�9�i '" . � w. 9 r'` � r `�. �•'� . l ++f: tiaT�14ii' ,� w �. .i"t^ i �`Yr �`'� f��irr ,,� 1 Y x tt0y Y✓}i.: +Lw1Jt R:~'•� :' 1' } {, ". J'V ray.., x •r �•L l '� �\ ",i' : M „�i C�1• J'r�'� t t '+`. �",'�"�,,y, •;J"i + ., •i s7; ++W wt � '�:. •�xl�,:^. ' i "S ) vr. f+^}?.ry�} w -•'-` .^ fir{ 'i a b j ' .( Y+"�t }r l',: � �'ra• r• �' I t t.c-. {y ,rr.. Ji< ,} jy .f;tl (4 .*-•_�:. \f'�'.. 'r ,..+�C7"'+�' �'jf��'t�!`j14..�;_... �'� �Lik?•i •:✓. r:,:. i .y� �n �� ,�, 'Yti ,l t�t,7i '+ i .;.'i ,R•t , �;� ti , �+ r • r �• t�Y:atN i,r%{ 4{ '�y-'_ �,•,•• ✓.;� F,v.l + _ 'r'- !' �� vs ��a �'.S�•t•�A,•' L .T',�, �.t, ' � � � '�' <~ i i {::JICr fA 1 •`r w �• t• , IL t ,} +a. :�+1^,S �'• �i•rri !7r'il'ti^�+;.. � f'�•y �.dj{.}�!•1 \}i:• i��' 'r',J�tp�i�'j�.� �}':• r,_•• i. i j..'f �� ;4� •n �•7 r� i;,.�f�'`J', a x i;,x•t �i' . yw -. .,f.�,.51 ^;� t.t { � �:" :'.'+,>?�ir M `! R, : , _` do �': L ,-�t�r" ;, 3,• P ,,• :rr •' �� ; 1:- �.. - +::'rt� Sn=S •1"�:t� 1 ' y,�l''!t.� I��: I'LI•ia�e��N:i�+�+4Z �'i' �. } � i �3;�� ir' ';�ik< .R��, i•�. _lk_.:rr rrIV t .., i. `� Baer! �iy, s,,......, J1.117���..�;p✓�'Jy�a .'�=• � ,',4S'1'I�t>�+•t. r+'�.'�;.� C�;t�.fla�''tL 7s.s �..,,`�`e••'�. �1 �• ,�..r.•>< t.,� µ�U��• #u; „ •'r. 7 • u-t •M 3 :{.ti f�;...�+' . 1'• , 5 ^•i titwt �r rVGi�`i.i•fl�.�': rr`M' I i w�'^z ct;1� r`tT•t. �y wft7• l'r X L.r ••r',,,, 4t•. c„ � a w Y•:• s d ,T. '>ti_J ��'yY�. V 5}� �'w' ' r. •.+ : •$'-'.�,.a''�i`E. Z,:.�}"�\ %h�'i' ," .! c-•,Sii-��. „` �Yda•�> r.�..a, ,,.� �:`�t�s:r••�•vyr•,§r�ly�.�.��RL�,i-. �'';:i�.h" ''x a: •'�`iY� •• _� ..r•-' ..� .p1} : nA���.ji'^� , . ,� -y�"%, d ,<�} �' � '`2.' s y,+�,rt•��y% ��'c �i�•�.r`�"x'4. �l S�'ti��}7,tr���+' r Ft�i� r ,y ,-:.7 air y`y rr,.'w,u•'tt ,. 'N.i > •.•.c i ✓ ri ��.,. "Fx< +. M,±ti 'v..�9 . ; f , , •'t° {°,'h�',v, , + .# k� V�� usi1, •� } \ �,;' . '1 4 :. r 1 +n. i 1 µ.. t �.,; ;+,�'�'' . + :+ r k .p iy:. . Ji"h• t 'I . Nt �a r + a.. r•, r 7 +'•i4S* r' �.t• `��' �, �r �,,ttiC ��tr�� +� �r�'' w I N � r t t�t• � 1+, ,3 wp a : • ` • ,r - T .•..•�M1 •$�,,}l{/'.,.•v 4i'. i, �iY+ }t nGT �y�• iF+`<. .�.�:._ .� _ �i 1• •^M[7`•, •i��"�,t nt;:-4dGx'. k [t L9st>c� •� `J,: •1�i7'x[I'. •.i,i.;.l};°1Cry r ",+rir. R..+t�i 5•1 it }.�I �,,•if AVn1,rMs; Y�. l 3i +�tp�-�•t'fii� {v�' a �� t „- ��. r , _'•• ♦�• •' �v � �.y!'�y1'ti+. �.✓tyjni.�KYJ ',.,,r - ►�rtr x, "...,. !'iC` J\ r ,tir' r` " rw+'•t`S I >�j' ,,J Iii"":� ' e�'',L L y,�q.na"'}� A...��, t vi't+Yl�Uilt� ��. :��Y����.:�C.;;• r�i �� .1,`• '� �lv .!t F f� ,•� � S r _ , ,'(,J( 1 r'•_:t��+.� .-•� r I. fi Y7lt , •�rr'1, .. - < ++yr. � 1� � ti•��, R;. ! r•,{c �• t? cT x1�}i'�• ! ^, ..: `' ✓ ., tia- r ', .. �.��t� �� `cy • �•r{LW�/y`. �r• � � ��,p. t,. r, r G u. r i ! `'a •• i r'} r ,} j'` of.w,- • t. .Ai� rr y Yy ft'J+:' : n t .r r f �'� 1 .ice''' �, •.ill' � ��� •.. , J• .+• •� '1 j•'�r3 } n .>,- j _ �• _ • c. 'S-p•'l.t r��:Y 01.� R - ~ t V`•.r.Jny�y x M l?� f`^•A' `^•x 'Sd• r Illmmm '.5�� Appendix B: Maps & Figures Fig, 9: Forest Citv Water Cure &Ladies Seminary. (Vignette from Faaan's 1353 Mao of Tompkins County N.Y.) NA Lj �` Wit. • - `' ' �..• i t , ` _ Uj t = {' r��®^�' _SSit pl7 • j i t • , f 7 }t 0 {FJy3; t ' r,� r1 ' .i ` Af� � .1 ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 4vpendy B.- maps &Fia'=s Fig- 1().'ADDro.xhnateLocation dfPrehistoric A_rcllacolnpic,?ISites iliVicinitiofproicctArea_ Scale oumar) Fn Nk, LAI 40 00 0 .4t 44 u q.y 14 Li J!yJ IiGl 11llll,II,II III �! JI 111 I 111111HIM „Ill. I. .!i!! 11 11 11111 !,1 111111 III I!111! LI 11111.11111@ 11 11.1 1Hill 1 ! 11IU 11 11 11.1I 1, I H it !11 111111111INI j'? t-. t .�w+r� �• a Cd Fiddler's Green 8 ' ' ti lowviIle y`• cksmith Sh " East Lausing, F, l v M y �1. j1 3WO a 3aaa 6M IMODO Feet. a Y.u�!A: i .I, 1 II 11111 1 1 111 Oil 11 1„ 11! 1 111.1111111 ,11111 1 1 111 JII I,I„!I IIIAI III111 I 1 IIi I!!II 1 1111 .1111!111! 11111!11 '.01, 11 1l1 !1911.111 1 11.,1111 II! 1 1111, 1!I ! !.. .III !!. !! l!1 1 III 1 ! III I PHOTOGRAPHS KEYED TO MAP OF PROJECT AREA Area Photo Numbers I Location Area A Photo 1-3 . Pump Station No. 1 Photo 4-6 Sperry Lane Area D Photo 7-10 Dug Road, Ludlowville Photo 11-12 Pump Station No. 3 Photo 13-17 Mill Street, Ludlowville Photo 18-19 Falls on Salmon Creek, Ludlowville Photo 20-25 Ludlowville Road (South)' Photo 26 & 3341 Maple Street, Ludlowville Photo 27-32 Ludlowville Road (West) Photo 4244 Ludlowville Road (South) Photo 45 Ludlowville Road (South of Salmon Photo 46-48 Creek) Pump Station No. 5 (Salmon Creek) Area E Photo 49-50 & 52-55 Ludlowville Road (South of Brickyard Road) Photo 51 I Pump Station No. 6 Area F Photo 56-60 Pump Station No. 2-(Myers) Photo 61-64 Ladoga Park Area G Photo 65-67 I Pump Station No. 7 Area P Photo 68 Pump Station No. 8 Photo 69-71 Pump Station No. 9 Photo 72-74 Pump Station No. 10 Area O Photo 75 North Triphammer Road & Franklin Drive Area N Photo 76 North Triphammer Road & Peruville Road Area M Photo 77 I Auburn Road opposite Louis Gossett, Jr. Area K & L Photo 78-82 East Shore Drive (South Lansing) Photo 83 Central Exchange Hotel Area J Photo 84-86 I South Lansing (Libertyville) ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Photograolis Keyed to Mau of Proiect Area Ithaca Wastewater Imorovement Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights & Town of Dryden. Tomukins County, New York. Area Q Photo 87 Asbury Meeting House Area O Photo 88 North Triphammer Road Photo 89 Peruville Road and Armstrong Road -Area T Photo 90 89 Farrell Road Area O Photo 91-92 Asbury Road & Benson Road Area S Photo 93-95 Triphammer. Terrace & Horvath Drive. Area R Photo 96 2622 North Triphammer Road Area S Photo 97-101 Bush Lane Area R .Photo 102-103 ' North Triphammer & Burdick Road Photo 104 1510 East Shore Drive Route 34B-34 (North .to South) Area A Photo 105-106 ' 680 Ridge Road Photo 107 FinateFarm Photo 108 641 Ridge Road Photo 109 505 Ridge Road Photo 110 509 Ridge Road Photo 111 Saltbox (early 19"' century) Area F Photo 112-113 Bungalow (North of Salmon Creek) Photo 114 156 Ridge Road Photo 115 The Homestead, c. 1820 Photo 116-117 Ridge Road (East side of Ridge Road) Area P Photo 118 1611 East Shore Drive Photo 119 '608 East Shore Drive Photo 120 East Shore Drive (West side of highway) Area R Photo 121 Italianate at East Shore Drive (North of Photo 122 Burdick Road) Photo 123 Burdick House (East Shore Drive) 1427 East Shore Drive (South of Burdick Road). Area V Photo 124-125 East Shore Drive, Cayuga Heights 44' APPEloTDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ADDendix C: Photoaraulls for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cav-usa Heights and Village of Dr den. Tompkins Counw. New York Photo 1: Pump Station No. 1 at end of Pinney Lane. View down slope toward Cayuga Lake. Photo 2: Pump Station No. 1. View of level area at end of Pinney Lane. View to north. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Culttuul Resource Consultants ADoendis C: Photograolis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing_ . Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 3: View to northeast from Pinney Lane in vicinity of Pump Station No. 1. Roads and water installed for new development. Photo 4: 114 Sperry Lane. Early 19«' century structure (center portion) has additions that obscure its original design. View to southwest. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants WIF t, it .F t s �''_ . � > ..3•.. r .sly,.,. _" �t�#t s."c A 19t t"rr;i_y-@ .Est ., k�-' «'j1,y { } tits �•4. �,, Z +ey s; in ',. ,J.. 1; F✓� 24.�. IA «• z s. � J i' i�;xr` F�4 � � v S,''.' eif"� �y �. x r.i w t� � i r.. • }� t Annendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of CawQa Heijzhts and Village of Dryden. Tompkins Countv. New York Photo 7: Location of Pump Station No. 3 on Dug Road, Ludlowville. House located:,on,.north side of Salmon Creek dates to late 19"' century. f� 1 iI.". 1 ii ii 1 J Photo 8: House on Dug Road on edge of Salmon Creek. Owner states house was built c. 1975. He found projectile points when digging foundation. View is to northeast. ithacala CITYISCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Annendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 9: House on west side of Dug Road. Local informant indicates this 1.0' century house has been completely refurbished. View to northwest. J. Photo 10: House on Dug Road near. Salmon Creek. Bungalow dates to mid-20"' century. View to southeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants �2A i _ A-R as.�N M44 eet in �foill suc used as Istatio 4 at end 0 been . could have to east. c, View nOf NMP 1� woodland to f1swins. 10catio . pump DEc for to . �,, undistl related bY strealu of j is area 0 Creek Ludlo�vvAle. salluo" Level �__,Acans. by 1qtive1 Resource camp site CIV I SC of Wastewater Proiect. Torn of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights Avnendis C: Pliotoaraphs for Ithaca J and Villaac - P ,-%—,A�n Tompkins County. NeAv York _a. .. A—np tiny ot11V1111 a1dv%+L ■■ pi,koto 14: Modern log ranch otha flows into Salmon Creek View to northeast. House is on banks of tributary i llwacala )to l I. CITY/SCAPE. Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing_ . Village of Lansing, Village of CavuQa Heights and Village of Divden. Tompkins Countv. Nesv York .3}•C�i:t;�i � Y �1.��i2'� ''y'n • JC�Y•�•="= J � r ti t J'+�.. - .".=.'a�;::`..=ai2�s>;�.'rLri�; w_ti.<,:x2:+`.=`�= 3m �•u�7::•�a».��`.v"r.�r..,. Photo 15: Ludlowville is an early settlement in Tompkins County. North end of this'dwelling may date to early ISO century, while gable end portion dates to mid=19"' century. View to northeast. Photo 16: House on east side of Mill Street dates to mid-191h century. View to northeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Aovendix C: Photogcanlis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Villas_ a of Lansing_. Vdiaae of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomokins County. New York Photo -17: House located on west side of Mill Street dates to mid-19`t' century. Like many houses in Ludlowville it has been altered by additions, and, in this case, composite (asphalt shingle) siding. View to southwest. tee' :.•y.A` �. �'i t d. ■ Photo 18: The falls on Salmon Creek in Ludlowville, These falls were an important resource for Native Americans and the early settlers. Silas Ludlow built a mill on the opposite side of Salmon Creek in 1795. View to north. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Anuendix C: Photograplls for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing_ . Village of Cavuea Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins Countv. New York Photo 21: East side of Ludlowville Road after it turns south. Several structures'appea.c on 1853 map of Ludlowville, but the structures in foreground appear to. date to late I SO century or early 2& century. View to southeast. Photo 22: House on east side of Ludlowville Road. Changes are being made (such as the skylight), but, in general, this tiny house is in the process of a careful restoration. View to east. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Aunendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing_ . Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. New York . W-6 _ <�:��A,;..-;'�"tititi;"�-.�.-� -• :sv?.tiF":='�K�;�; ia'� -�:`x:�.,�tr s,_ ••t_,,,.,� -r�,� [r,+,..�.-n..�a,�.s��„�:�—�: .,-,. '.Y�-._ - -_ ..:. �. -___ _ r'ir�_ - � sa,.,rr:� •�at.�:�:� 'ei �; _. e4'•t�..'c.�.;ef}�,.�w�f.;`�y+�i�',:�tir.+,c_..4�� . `r:_ ��;*' - - ^�=�:�`�4�-^.::' - S>lvt.'6-...-_.�..i�.�'d'�d; .:-,-<.;7:;�>''s �`�".•tiz>:�. y_.,: <<j�_����Ktv..�r>v� ..cr:. x:ex-n. ... a _:f;?� >G>_ � ;--- - �� . ..... r s M ' .;�?T_a' ram..,: ky„!;'1.�..� � ';;-`:=" r-. ,•'� ,t;c..ia . - .e `--? Photo 23: View of east side of Ludlowville Road included Greek Revival house. Similar houses appear throughout Tompkins County. House to south appears on 1953 map, but is much altered and infringed upon by road widening. View to southeast. Photo 24: Commercial block in Ludlowville. Addition on north side is later. Formerly occupied by stores, it has been converted to apartments. View to northwest. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Aupendis C: Photoaraolis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing_ . Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Drvden. Tornnkins County. New York Photo 25: Ludlowville Methodist Church. This building, which appears on 1853 map west of Salmon Creek Road, has been moved. View to west. Photo 26: Dwelling located at corner of Mill Street and Maple Avenue. House dates to 20"' century. View to west. itlracala- CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing_. Village of Ca vuea Heip-hts and Vill^a2e of Drvtd�en. Toq nDkins Countv. New York '�_\.x. 7��'.•i���^.81�1;xe�L�7G*FFTi`.L.2.�Y'� 4_� :r'x.:�l wt 9 Photo 27: Dwelling on north side of'Ludlowville Road west of park in Ludlowville. This building dates to early 19°i century. View to north. a Photo 28: 175 Ludlowville Road. The Federal House (c. 1815). Located east of Salmon Creek Road, it is currently a Bed & Breakfast, but in 1853 the Burr family owned the house. Variations on this 3-bay house are found throughout Tompkins County, often with an addition to one side. Here the additions were made at the rear. Fanlight and side lights are particularly nice. View to north. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 1 1 1 ADDendix C: Photogranlis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomnkuis County. New York #� i Photo 29: Square 3-bay dwelling with hipped roof (similar to 10 Sperry Lane) on south side of Ludlowville Road. House dates to mid-ISOcentury. View to south. Photo 30: Small dwelling dating from Greek Revival Period (1820-1860). In rear is a barn dating, perhaps, to same period. View to south. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cave_ a Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. Neiv York Photo 31: North side of Mill Street east of junction with Ludlowville Road. Gable end house with I'/2-story extension with eyebrow windows. Dates to Greek Revival Period (1820-1860). View to north. Photo 32: South side of Mill Street east of Ludlowville Road. House is an example of Italianate- style (1840-1880) with wide eaves supported by brackets, double doors with round arched glass panels, and strongly contrasting color scheme. View to southwest. ithacala CITYISCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Pliotograplis for Ithaca Wastewater Pro_lect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heialits and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 33: One.of several houses on Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. House is on east -side of street. Additions have been made, but it is the gable end house with. extension seen in other -parts .of Tompkins County. View to east. Photo 34: House on east side of Maple Avenue. Converted to apartments, this house has additions, alterations in fenestration and is sided in vinyl. View to northeast. ifliacaIa CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants 1 1 i Aupendis C: PliotoQraalis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansine_ Villas_ e of Cati_ yea Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York Photo 35: Another dwelling on Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. View to east. Photo 36: House on east side of Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. View to east. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ADDendix C: Photoaravlis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing. Village of CaNuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomokins Countv. New York Photo 37: Dwelling on west side of Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. View to northwest. Photo 38: Dwelling on east side of Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. Although much altered, it follows the basic design of many house in Tompkins County. View to southeast. a - ithaca la CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Avvendix C. Photogravhs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Drvden. TolnDkins Counh,. New York Photo 39: Dwelling on east side of Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. Property runs down'to Salmon Creek. View to southeast. Photo 40 East side of Maple Avenue in Ludlowville. Another example of Greek Revival design in Tompkins County. View to southeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants u � • tt I Ali '� l.t. ��: 1�6i , ,y�....,�. a � •: _ s ... w ,�, 1; �.' J r - +r , I :t .. P c r h 1 `q TEA at. �� at rzn- . `•q �. Y. �^\ r,2`r• � .,.'�1LT-w. <yt � i' t'� 1. f� KY •L 1a"1�.,r..... ` Y.. / `'S. 'i S f `w �'+.l 'l♦'6''#.'Fp4'�`�G�.J`a',> t "chi " "< ' ' t `�,'' ... > i ;•�, t"e' • are-,rt<� i• i * �' ;. � .+, x ,t,. +, r � Lam• � .r ... .. v... .r.,. .._ e.w. ..r.... "'N• al....''.,. :t.-.. -N:�. �'hoto 43: Dwelling on east side of Ludlowville Road south of village. House is in close ]Proximity. to Salmon Creek. View to southeast. Photo 44: House located immediately north of bridge crossing Salomon kreex LIL Luul View to southwest. Ala C'T yY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource a" to later 20 Creek. fee Salmo of blifto CTO 00 Jill 1111 atoll 45:o AOAXS east. photo to ......... 7M, are 4 >, ::::....:. -. R..,,;�-.....;��. �` f,. -�" Salmon Creek, d B kyard g tO'w southeas- out ar View t. 0.5 Qtl►ers• side o Cants LOG -Vtuko Location Stu, access CIVISCO provides ! y r NA r►! � �.� ' j � � '%tom y — ►4 W},/ 4r ill Ly• y FF r,l Aanendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastmater Project. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing. Village of CaruQa Heights and Village of Dn=den. Tompkins Countv, New York Photo 49: Dwelling on east side of Ludlowville Road on hill south of Brickyard Road., View to northeast. y Photo 50: Dwelling south of Brickyard Road on top of hill.. View to east. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Anuendis C: Photograuhs for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomt)kins County. New York - - ,�. 'F'9'.: a?�as' .x - .i;;¢j�-'�� vx;�r ^'�`� ti-. � atx.. ��z`<F.s� 1ki� - - `+`F uic`.-,,:r-. ._.__ YGa 'C.0 Pi,.x_ �„-�a16t��'3.p,�,:_r s"5�'.nt'9 i_7_ -3 `+•, �G'«.ts±��.�A?r' �azaFd.?d:.}..a� ,r�"'�P-s. �..�:�<:;+r`..:�'.t-WYc'._. .���'�..'"�a,'i+..::zo; "c�Y'�,w'.;a.:zn.'�`3`x�1" s�: a+-="`�n'�x• ..K ,�r>�sa 3 ■ Photo 51: View toward location of Pump Station No. 6. Flat area at top of hill south of Brickyard Road. Fragmites on east side of road may be associated with wetland area. View to southeast. ie O Photo 52: Dwelling on west side of Ludlowville Road south of Brickyard Road in vicinity of Pump Station No. 5. View to southwest. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants AuDendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastmater Project. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Ca -ma Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomokins County, New York Photo 53: Another dwelling north of house seen in Photo 52. All of these 'strictures are'mid to late 20"' century. View to southwest. Photo 54: Dwelling on east side of Ludlowville Road south of Brickyard Road. Apparently abandoned, house dates to late 19t" or early 20"' century. View to east. idiacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: PliotograDlis for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of CaNilga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York NZ7 Z7 -110, Photo 55: Late 19 111 century dwelling located on west side of Ludlowville Road south -of Brickyard ROad. View to northwest. Photo 56: Area in vicinity of Pump Station No. 2 in hamlet of Myers. View is to southeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Anoendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Protect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Canoga Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins County. Ne;v York Photo 57: Location of Pump Station No. 2 in hamlet of Myers. Appears that area has been . significantly disturbed, possibly by mining operations, but definitely by cutting associated with road construction. View to northeast. Photo 58: Small commercial structure located on west side of Myers Road in hamlet of Myers. View to northwest. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Avvendi C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing_ . Village of Cavuea Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins Counw, New York Photo 59: View to west across railroad track in hamlet of Myers. View is toward Myers Point Park, a man-made peninsula. Original shoreline paralleled railroad line. View to. west. .. ._r+�.i lz' s. .�,...� :, ::,fir, �i.. '�"^CiHr;��. 'j).:�..?3u• C;�-s'>:dt' •.i,?v ::t. �_L�i.". - 1::3.�a='`.:.4;7 ,...>::t: t,�Pi-. �r`-d".+'r;.,...io§"»� " •t^-y� '%�"� i.S.s��'a- ' - `S.`. _ � k' R+v e�•x.,:.,,e ^ lY:.b•!?:'�J.fvh�•;'v `��. :'iiii",5;» •+.�%+-`H,:�� ': $::�^,.- � s:._FF,'' -- _ _ - ^%�,�`>:�`�: ..t-: :l,l:• - _"t€"+" wSt K�"�•i': r€> :t� - .1_a _ _ -4`.-f:r.n:=.' �.4 ",y` �i9.'' ,.4.-*ter_... ;:�j "3 F'ti �:• _ - �'.`li`. H. ' *^1:.NJ`�.;v :jl:>i -. .x�<' ..C� _ 0 td- r. ."•e't...r 4 `yi."� `«:Li',�: �:' �..%.x'�.�.:::.:'..�v�er� �.,.,uw�.,..s;.�-��'..s�.�"7.w`���•.:��::.�^ei""°�.?�.t�:::.»._.._, .. .:._ __..._..... ._�:8s.`-_t"r'r�Kx�",._._ K. _ __�.:._— ..;,��� Photo 60: View of former railroad depot in hamlet of Myers. Original shoreline ran along Lake Shore Road. View to southwest. r - ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Avnendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Protect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Ca-vuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomokins County, New York Photo 61: View of Cayuga Lake from Ladoga Park Road west of railroad tracks. Portland Point -is in distance. View to southeast. Photo 62: View eastward from end of Ladoga Park Road toward railroad track. Cottages along Cayuga Lake dating from mdi-2& century. View to east. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Anaendix C: PhotogmDlis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansine. Village of Cav_ uea Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins County. New York gr�''o�' Photo 63: Early 19"' century dwelling at intersection of Lake Shore Road and Ladog&Pai:k Road. View to northeast. Photo 64: View from intersection of Myers Road and Ladoga Park Road looking southwest toward Cayuga Lake. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Photoeraphs for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York 5,5 r�-`1'ys£Sf x�7`F 1 Photo 67: One of storage buildings located. at south end of Portland Point. In early 20' . century a small hamlet area developed in this area to serve salt mining operations. View to southwest. a Photo 68: Rock cut at end of Reach Run west of Pump Station No. 8. View to east. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Appendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomoknis County. New York _... .� .+.s. � h�;o,: t .-r.,�¢ysE�{•� C°r'��>-; ;41:,; <,{+z `•_ r=�,r aw:r:.r.a,.:: �i: � � . _ . .. `•N � .tom ✓✓% e �,.�ji/ '15.. .�.i-`:�...� ii.��' PPhoto 69: Site of Pump Station No. 8. Area has been significantly acted g y impacted p by road construction for new development. View to southeast. 1 Photo 70: Site of Pump Station No. 8-. Steep area impacted by road construction for new development. View to northeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants t ,tT - z•2+ 'k "i'S, L .� ..•:_. t .a+ca . • h k 3•`aE 4 -. s •,;?`,�"`,y�.�qx. ��+-,. �_� } t �t i�4N"y,til,�. 2., .� � ` r4y `4 rb"""• ye. 1 � •I �} Y `1 Z,. �. .� ... �� }. yir •'t j 4 4� *M=�� 1 ��5��''>�Y'L `r.;.�yr �, +� `'• r d. ' .r �'`�i�y-X�+;' �' s /j "`€ �+� �'^iF� r`r, y i--x,: t:�.. ,a�• �f,At'q'iNr.+' 'het• ts� ' �� - C: rF � 3,.� � �"'�'-'e f' 3 J. .• to southeast. Ila � "�F� • %�'' ��- y�'3 L 1*'� i S - a ,� r"� 'ram � r� r,� 3�'4' `sT r "� c�•' - f 't1. �Y� i F "1'- x: '° 'v' ^r" i rr r' � ., t . � '�''' : -+�; ry: xT .-`+X.:,. P rsji;,,. ,�, F%s' s ;-�' t+iR •` t� "' ; • 1, }�+ s`. I - � ,;.. ¢ r n -+''.� ♦ � $ • :.*S� is r /, �j� �{� i%ro'4 �.n/ <.�,•• X7�'ri a.Q �'� +z,,. ,, "" e w•k ,�'r ' g � � •1 ,. � y, � ` J��' i r Y*.^. ' '{'¢/ •�'.b, +R _ �:+ � a t ° � � � ,fin *� N� _ � .� �... i ,(c(� Y �� �xi� ��.�r i;xG^� f t • ,�.,,��.-��..a�� yam.. # x .� ��'�' Sr r .fir � J � ]- . �i. i� �"� j�+i4 �'t,Y '� s. t�.1�':Y YI;: J." ��k i•�f S.•) '"•.. O �,.i. r1' ti "-`. ?.if^.+.z SC � �j � s `t� � ffY�`•-n,+'e �'K` w �'� `� �'•�G*+fi��-•pM�'��+� C` � yF .'r ,.y ��', 4�r�t .LY��# �}s',i•� ,. -'� - � . - ' S.t •�,,�yI�'r�- rr,•44-�v',�xY��:+gs.�'r°" ' tw..'kL'�' +ta'�- � �`1 •../ ,ly.� 4f � "�,�'�'`,-�"r�,,. `'� ?' �h.iH•'3"RF�'�"`.ram-.�' yy *� .F vi `.,� ✓ L. Mir zv- � i `i.�. Yh i Y 1 S �. � 1 .f 1 -R a r1 yr1•Y ] ...,�� \' � t +' ti� ..t� , y > {L '�`y� ...�'n . ;`' � i ' �' ldrfG :tip• 'r r r4 s r K--s �- 'S `+t �� �*. v � T '�'f � n'•.. ~ �i � tr t.� ,,(� i a40. �u.+..�• •s. rnJ� yJ6 .. fi!.. 1€ M "i-t.,x�- "�`, ``_ ; yet `�', :�x K`' �t ? „ ••-• �` mat^` � • W''.� � �c,'•:� � �' � . � , ,� � t a �` Z'- ,� x ,,.yam }• r" Ohl- �i'�P. �i'i'a" rY /'�' /' ..Yl� Yam• y .��i'�_,�. � �,>�, .� 't+^ .. yrc, }y,401 �i-�rf>��. tyw�y1r f ! � �r'Ls u t�•V1 -. . c..4 J,.. �t �a. a r1 �. Yt;.: 1•-� n-s% 4 �+ .. Awl ter,,{ � � } a �,j.�{'.,�.,,}!" n�. � fir; .A�"y' •�•�� -.3' s�w "►^ I' AMendis C: Photogrnains for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cawga Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins County, New York Photo 75:. Dwelling on Armstrong Road at intersection with Franklin Drive. Although deteriorated, this house represents Greek Revival form. seen throughout Tompkins County. View to east. Photo .76: Dwelling south of intersection of North Triphammer Road and Peruville Road. Another Greek Revival form with addition's (c. 1820-1860). View to northwest. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants of Lansing. Villae of Lansing Villa�e of Cavuaa He�ahts lls for Itliaca Wastewater project 1 otvn , Plioto�rap York Apaendis C' Tomvkins County, New and Village of Dnden. „ i p 6ma 77: Mid~19'h century dwum.5 f, Photo 78: 77 NYS Route:"" north. �r to Consultants Cl-ry/SCAP' Cultural Resource E itlxacala Annendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing_ Village of Cauga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins Countv, New York r i t , Photo 79: Lansing Funeral Home in South Lansing. Greek Revival farm house north side of Auburn Road. View to north. Photo 80: Schoolhouse in South Lansing (Libertyville) now used as library. South side of Auburn Road (Route 34). View to south. . ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Aunendit C: Plrotograulis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. ' Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tornpkins County, New York Photo 81: Grange in South, Lansing (Libertyville) now used as Town Center. View to southwest. Photo 82: Early 19°i century schoolhouse in South Lansing (Libertyville). Located behind Town Center. View to south. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ADbendix C: Pliotographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuea Heights and Village of Dn.-den. Tompkins Countv. New York Photo 83: "Rogue's Harbor".Inn, South Lansing. Formerly the Central Exchange Hotel (c. 1834), a stage stop on the road to Auburn. Photo 84: House in South Lansing north of intersection of East Shore Drive (Route 34) and Ridge Road (Route 34B). View to southwest. - ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Annendis C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuea Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 87: Asbury Methodist Church at intersection of North Triphammer Road and Asbury Road. Church, which replaced two earlier structures, dates to mid-19"' century. View to west. Photo 88: Early 19°i century dwelling on south side of Asbury Road appears on 1853 map of Tompkins County. View to southwest. ' ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ADuendit C: PhotograDhs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing, Village of Lansina. Villas_ a of Cavuea Heights and Village of Drvden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 89: Greek Revival dwelling at intersection of AsburyRoad and Armstrong goad. Details blurred by asphalt shingle. View to northwest. Photo 90: 89 Farrell Road. Typical Tompkins County Greek Revival altered by asphalt shingle and additions. View to north. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants f •ix L rt» � . � yT• � 1`C • YM• � q:' ",. �r ej� •pry. •}��' } Tj� �i �T •A W , 323i TI 6 Y �t r „ti .7h' 's•1+f•.'^`s a'".. .x. �.e,,. �5�:}sr,{Y�F't7,.^_�S. s.�.,..'�K.•r ?:r :. tn 'nr '-w .Z \fit .}- �. a 4' «a J .►,•�. .. ! y. _ 1• } t 1 _ \ �`'�. � � } . 'ice , r'1n Y:; .` - '` i1. �• VY . . . . . . . . . . . j 4tV )M4Z 1A, 5 Apvendis C: Pliotoaraphs for Ithaca Wastewater Project. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansine. Village of Cavuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York t.Y,ti it t< r = Photo 101: 135 Bush Lane. Greek Revival house with addition and minor alterations to fenestration. Small stream flows in front of house. ' View to north. Photo 102: Greek Revival dwelling at intersection of North Triphammer Road and Burdick Hill Road. View to southwest: ithacala . CITYISCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants r-�"� j '- 1 ++-tom�. a.`., � ... ;,Y'�+,�_If s���i _.�� � ='• ����w It i � •�.. V ,�, _, • •" �, -T 1 «^ Z'+ 5 rf•.+. Mr h tti •f' to �„) t: ' { cT.'�i. .. t .•� i i t ! •+ €�' 7WY a `'' � r+ry%:-tia��''S "x` ✓• ♦+- wr � u. ,5``'t.'?.�3,r�.� .a� �.r �,% • t .k , , 3L. 1 � 'iC t�,k S .�s''�t,-'•�.� r, �u h t �e r � �}.� , +� t. ,♦#y`*x•x-n' irr % �..>�. { fy�, "t f „t`._ w ..-rEY' �'�t F2? {�'r� i v �.- i F= '�� ��} �R 'n ��t!�}H. J *3 I '� L�i"l�YI�}y�rr�j�Z� ADDendis C: PliotoaraDlis for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuea Heights and Village of Drvden. TornDkins County. New York ■ Photo 105: 680 Ridge Road. Facade of dwelling with Greek Revival porch supported by Ionic columns. House itself may date to early 19"' century. View to northeast. A Photo 106: View of side of same house (see Photo 105). Large Greek Revival addition to rear of house creates second entrance. Some alterations, including modern bay window on second floor. View to southeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Amendit C: Photoaraahs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cawga Heights and Villaee.of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York ithacala Photo 109: 505 Ridge Road. Late 19`'. century dwelling on east side of highway. View 'to east. Photo 110: 509 Ridge Road. Greek Revival stripped of details and covered in asphalt shingle. East side of highway. View to'southeast. CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Anuendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heiglits and Village of Dryden. Tompkins County, New York Photo .111: Dwelling with salt box roofline. Based on recessed doorway, roofline and other details, this house dates to late 18"' or very early I Oil century. View to north. : Photo 112: Dwelling located on east side of Ridge Road immediately north of bridge crossing Salmon Creek. Bungalow style (1890-1940) is not frequent in the project area, but this is a classic example of the type. View to southeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants t " .•� x r,. a ;�'�S'•.s� .. .'•''� r _ � • ,. � .✓ , �-s � ,tea i i 1r�4 s r i 3 '�s,,,� }r�,yr• ✓l-."*yfi�t'�x � � � ' 5,t� f4. x r r. , 4 � x � i < t ;S.•rCtc�fi+•%�tJ �""" �7.7=T•rr3.7 4r� 'r7+Y s^�:+^k r�� ','' a v "`.`..�. t.. {��� �saa'.'`.^�N"t Vc.-ti �a ..�tr2`n* • 3,'i5� ST...F!n.�'x'�i� ... w r,�r ^"�.,+'�7r�a�.,.•.roy-c�, a � ^ � r t � - c �������� Ne �tif Ip l '�FR rt J LLL .•.r^R.� aas ,�.+rart.�7 !+'� .3 N•. ^ Jtt.T � ;,�'F��.�. :, l a �,��`�e� Ft����s^ �t1"�� ' ��i�J-,: r•� x+�•'" ~ � �'S¢ 4•y -s*' •,,iy t tnq�r' � L ,xa4rY.. �� jam, ry'�y� 'i�` ��' sk+.� .rx ti �'� r �. ""� t` �������"���r�`t ��`•�1 y ''IFZ^ �"+tiro �� �+ .�yfrPS ; ;+�It - t rc �.. '•� S"4d t 'A; Zw � r fit' .•i m„klda f �t f.rt .d •?ts`�' , j=Rm�,,7u'es" ; ". l% �`' � r.(� :`t�''S ,1+' � ". •}, r �� :�'' 4 i fir'{ Q A-r1 �'^•� )1 4 3 5 ,il. �j *�+r i *4 i �{ Vt� ♦ ��i 3i i �N[ „t iit et � :d;t�� !..: _ r t�:�r�,.�s=i•,.*�s�;'�'i3',�,•`;�i, i�""�'x,`•.: ,. �•_. � � F ,A,�,Y •„ � 'ate•' ; �: �,:,.:. '4 d r '3' �•� "�J� ` � .,r,v; i.. 4'c.5 � �rdG• fa'p.'; 3 y"' •y.. ,.� L y J � I , • - , '�-<t fi1.- �,yf .1•.X.�k•�L �iw,'L*N y z �.� rr i J 1 �'� c y'''��`"{f� ` } t'r'i �-•.tc, "!",+ ! y,a.,, ,`. .�•t y'.-7�-"•.._Y•.''` c xx a. r' .*' _�'� -.';_...mot.,. .,:.'"'.�_.->>..:z?-�.'-,.�`__ s:. h,. t•�,�,_:....r.,..._.T�:3��!Se:�=�::c..y,:.�s«:.t..><a:icAuf�Ya'S�'y 4�Fh'.r�"fi�i�:�,. x. t�......?:`. ' ~9 I �.� �•' ,•^''•#_ all Y k r 4'y,{, S9S.." � �� �.ta'.3'.'�+�'�`1��'R Yt'('�„$1 I " - . i. ♦ r � � !- ' ' M = . 1.. 15 � `�+�b.•-1I H�:�� ¢ r mot.. �.c..w,•."`�'�t;'3 AA��`'Y'r -'t - -V.'� sn. � +.. _-l.'>_v.�[3�'!Id n L k�.n FN rd�,i• �^� u 9 - i i NIT i r • r �(z �' r. :� •cam` �� .: - r ir• � f SI�.. •.. { C � j Y r& u ` MR. • `}',�.:..� � ���''�•� a- � `�'; + W-�, . ice•~ ' •. s 'r �x $ e :�ni3S�t ,:,^ � e`F F '� `•�!"� ice_ r ' �; _ .r • -+•�::" _ A a � : � ::F'�xt'*. •. �(�Y8'iW' .:'Z4s r t ,t.Pi,,'a,,.,, ` .j �i . ;,ii ��ri'jn�� a 4 ,. .�uft I.F.. •` � r .. t _ ... .. . _ •.c1I �i�.r hu ..� ks�`�«'F"a]�r'S'.*.r.�t : .i• r .': a+'. .fin �' r-� ¢ -1j+ �:.e. ..s, r' C'71 ma`s ♦.,J, �' �' dni(b G ys , ._ r 4 firt j h T Z Amendix C: Photographs for Ithaca Wastewater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing_ . Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Dryden. Tomokins County, New York Photo 123: 1427 East Shore Drive. Located near Burdick Hill Road on east side of highway. Three -bay Federal period house built in two section with modern addition on south 'side. View to northeast. Photo 124: Victorian cottage set on hill overlooking Cayuga Lake on East Shore Drive in Cayuga Heights. View to northeast. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cuhu aI Resource Consultants Aimendix C: Photom, As for Ithaca Waste►vater Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Q. uea Heial►ts and Village of Drvden. Tompkins County. New York Photo 125: Dwelling on east side of East Shore Drive in Cayuga Heights. Greek Revival structure has been altered by addition of dormer to light attic rooms and change in fenestration on first floor. View to east. Note: Not all houses within project area were. photographed. The majority of the late 18°i and 19"' century dwellings are included. Photos of house that have been: 1) built in -the past several years as part of new development in the Town of Lansing, or 2) built between the end of World War H and the 1970's are not included. None are considered eligible for listing either on the National Register of Historic Place or the State Register, nor are any of these dwellings of local historical interest. In general, while there are several houses dating to the.Federal Period and numerous house from the Greek Revival period in the Town of Lansing, none of these structures appear eligible for listing on the National or State Register as individual structures. These structures are located throughout the Town of Lansing and Cayuga Heights, but there are few areas where they are sufficiently localized to suggest the possibility of a historic district; however, it is possible that a small district might be created in Ludlowville, a second might be along Bush Lane. Importantly, with very few exceptions, the proposed Ithaca Wastewater Project is restricted to areas along current highways and roads in the Town of Lansing. In the areas where the proposed project crosses open land, as it does, for example, when it runs south from Asbury Road to the north side of Farrell Road, no historic structures will be impacted. Having examined the route of the proposed project thoroughly, it is concluded that none of the historic structures identified in the Town of Lansing will be impacted by the proposed Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project. 1 ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants APPENDIX D TABLE S 3 & 4 ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants TABLE 3 POTENTIAL FOR PUMP STATION LOCATIONS TO CONTAIN PREHISTORIC SITES i� iq l ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stage I Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis for Ithaca Wastewater Improveinent Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cayuga Heights and Town of Dryden. Tompkins County. New York TABLE 3 POTENTIAL FOR PUMP STATION LOCATIONS TO CONTAIN PREHISTORIC SITES Pump Station No. Location Potential Assessment of Prehistoric Archaeological Potential Pump Station No.1 End of Piney Lane (off Moderate Rationale: Based on proximity to Cayuga Lake (Photo 1-3) Sperry Lane) Area located on a bench overlooking Cayuga Lake, but not directly, associated with stream or spring. Steep slope to west down toward lake; sloped to east. Area would be rated "high potential" except for lack of access to water and steepness of surrounding land. Potential for temporary or special use camp, perhaps related to hunting-' Pump Station No. 2 Near intersection of Low Rationale: Based on apparent mining activity and road construction (Photo 56-59) Myers Road and Lakeshore Road in Would be rated high if not disturbed. Area was formerly at edge of Hamlet of Myers Cayuga Lake; Myers Point Park is largely man -man. Pump Station No. 3 End of Dug Road in High Rationale: Based on proximity to Salmon Creek and reported sites (Photo 7-10) Hamlet of Ludlowville Camp site reported in Ludlowville (OPRHP Al09-07-0004/NYSM 5801). Local informant reported finding projectile points_near his house on east side of Dug Road (north bank of Salmon Creek). Potential for use as camp site (no village sites reported in Ludlowville) Pump Station No. 4 End of Mill Street in High Rationale: Based on location on south shore of tributary of Salmon (Photo 11-12) Hamlet of Ludlowville Creek and reported sites Camp site reported in Ludlowville (OPRHP A109-07-0004/NYSM 5801). Level area that could have served as camp site (no village sites reported in Ludlowville) ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage lA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing. Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins Countv. New York Pump Station No. Location Potential Assessment of Archaeological Potential Pump Station No. 5 (Photo 46-48) Pump Station No. 6 (Photo 51 & 54) . Pump Station No.' 7 (Photo 65-66) Ludlowville Road High immediately south of bridge crossing Salmon Creek Rationale: Based on location of south side of Salmon Creek and reported site in immediate vicinity Camp site reported in Ludlowville (OPRBP A109-07-0004/NYSM 5801). Site reported to be on west side of Brickyard Road on Salmon Creek. Level area that, could have served as camp site (no village sites reported in Ludlowville) Ludlowville, Road, Moderate Rationale: Lack of proximity to Salmon Creek or other fresh water south of Brickyard source; however, in vicinity of small wetland and less than a mile from Road at top of hill reported archaeological resources Camp site reported in Ludlowville (OPRHP Al09-07-0004/NYSM 5801). Site reported to be on west side of Brickyard Road on Salmon Creek. Level area that could have served as camp site (no village sites reported in Ludlowville); however, appears less sensitive than other pump station sites in vicinity of Ludlowville. Fact that level areas near water are in close proximity makes use of this area, not impossible, but less likely. East side of Portland Low Rationale: Proximity to Cayuga Lake, Gulf Creek and reported Road on Portland Point resources; however in area formerly associated with Portland cement and salt mining operations. Traces of occupation are reported along lake shore from Portland Point northward to Myers (NYSM 5033). Site may be located in area of disturbance associated with Portland cement or salt mining operations; visual inspection suggests entire area has been heavily reworked as part of mining operations and road construction ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Stage 1 A Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect. Town of Lansing. Village of Lansing, Village of Cavuga Heights and Town of Drvden. Tompkins County. New York Pump Station No. Location Potential Assessment of Archaeological Potential Pump Station No. 8 North side of Reach Low Rationale: Although located in close to Cayuga Lake road construction (Photo 68) Run west of Smugglers appears to have created significant disturbance in area proposed for Path Pump Station No. 8 Area located on a bench overlooking Cayuga Lake, but not directly associated with stream or spring. Steep slope to west down toward lake; sloped to east.. Located in a new subdivision; road construction appears to have disturbed proposed location of Pump Station No. 8. Area would be rated "high potential" except for lack of access to water. steepness of surrounding land, and disturbance. Pump Station No. 9 On north side of Low Rationale: Although located in close to Cayuga Lake, road construction (Photo 69-70) Eastlake Road near appears to have created significant disturbance in area proposed for junction with Bolton Pump Station No. 9 Point Road Area located on a bench overlooking Cayuga Lake, but not directly associated with stream or spring. Steep slope to west down toward lake; sloped to east. Located in a new subdivision; road construction appears to have disturbed proposed location of Pump Station No. 9. Area would be rated "high potential' except for lack of access to water. steepness of surrounding land, and disturbance. Pump Station No. 10 End of Bolton Point High Rationale: Based on close proximity to Cayuga Lake and small stream. (Photo 72-74) Road Area located in proximity to small stream a short distance east of shore of Cayuga Lake in undeveloped woodland. Entire shore of lake must be considered sensitive for prehistoric sites. Area could have been used as camp site. ithacala CYTY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource .1 TABLE 4 POTENTIAL FOR PROJECT AREA TO CONTAIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants TABLE 4 POTENTIAL FOR PROJECT AREA TO CONTAIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Identifier Location Type -of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area A Ridge Road between Historic: No archaeological potential Beckwith Lane & Dandy Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but View Heights lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces sensitivity Beckwith Lane to Sperry Historic: Potential historic archaeological sites, including early Lane — north side of Ridge 19`h century store, (Tooker's store), schoolhouse & post office Road (description says store was in front of A. J. Sperry dwelling,). No surface evidence observed. Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces sensitivity. Beckwith Lane to Sperry Historic: Lane — south side of Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but Ridge Road lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces sensitivity Sperry Land south to Historic: No historic archaeological potential (Fiddlers Green Fiddlers Green & Pinney was located on Route 34B) Lane, including Lansing Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but Heights Land and lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces Lakeview Drive sensitivity Pumping Station No. 1 End of Pinney Lane Prehistoric: Moderate potential based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, sensitivity decreased by lack of water & steepness (Photo 1-3) ithaca la CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Project Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area B Open land between Fiddlers Green & Sperry Lane & Ridge Road to point approximately'/z mile south of Ludlowville Road Area C _East side of Ridge Road between Lansingville Road and Ludlowville Road Area D Ludlowville West side of Ridge Road North side of Ludlowville Road to edge of village South side of Ludlowville Road to edge of village Edge of village to southern extension of Ludlowville Road Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: High, based on relative lack of disturbance (agricultural fields) with proximity to Cayuga Lake, but sensitivity reduced by lack of nearby stream or spring Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces sensitivity Historic: No historic archaeological potential (Fiddlers Green was located on Route 34B) Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Cayuga Lake, but lack of nearby stream or spring. Road construction reduces sensitivity Historic: Former site of Methodist Meeting House Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Salmon Creek. No sites reported, but sensitivity increases in proximity to Salmon Creek. Historic: No historic archaeological potential identified Prehistoric: Moderate, based on proximity to Salmon Creek. No sites reported, but sensitivity increases in proximity to Salmon Creek. Historic: Foundations of H. L. Burr & Co. Store (probably impacted by road widening & culverts) (1853) .Prehistoric: Low, based on road construction and installation of water lines and culverts on edge of roadway ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants its M i M M r Stage lA Literature Review and Sensitivity Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Ludlowville A109-07-0004 (also .000004) & NYSM 5801 Mill Street, Dug Road & Maple Avenue Ludlowville Road to Maple Avenue Ludlowville Road, Maple Avenue to Brickyard Road South of Salmon Creek in Ludlowville Area E South of Ludlowville Road and east along Brickyard Road to Wilson Road Historic: Site of Blacksmith Shop (probably impacted by road construction & culverts, plus park construction (1866). Prehistoric: Mill Street: Low, due to road construction, installation of water and culverts on edge of road Dug Road: Moderate, due to road construction and installation of water; potential of Pump Station No. 3 considered high (relatively undisturbed) (Photo 7-10) Mill Street, Dug Road to end: Moderate, due to road construction and installation of water; potential of Pump Station No. 4 considered high (relatively undisturbed) (Photo 11-12) Maple Avenue: Moderate, due to road construction and installation of water lines Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate, due to road construction and installation of water lines Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: High, due to presence of reported sites; potential of Pump Station No. 5 considered high (relatively undisturbed & reported site A109-07-0004/NYSM 5801) (Photo 46-48) Camp site Site appears to be in or immediately adjacent to proposed Pump Station No. 5. Sensitivity of Salmon Creek and its tributaries suggests that except for disturbed areas the entire Ludlowville area has high potential to yield prehistoric resources. Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Undisturbed areas considered high, due to presence of reported sites; potential of Pump Station No. 6 considered moderate, due to lack of fresh water (Photo 51 & 54) ithaca1a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stale lA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier I Location Type of Site I Assessment of Archaeological Potential Portion of line running south from Wilson Road to Wildman Road Area F South side of Ridge Road along north loop of Myers Road to Marina Road A109-07-0006 I Near hamlet of Myers Myers Point. Park area Area G Along Cayuga Lake from Lakeshore Road to Portland Point Road NYSM #5034 Along shore of Cayuga Lake between Portland Point and Myers Area H South of Ridge Road to Cayuga Lake between Portland Point Road & west side of Drake Road Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Undisturbed area, high potential based on proximity to reported site and Salmon Creek Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Undisturbed areas considered high, due to proximity to lake, Salmon Creek and reported sites (A109-07- 0006); potential of Pump Station No. 2 low due to profound disturbance (Photo 56-59) Burial site Site described as west of Route 34B approximately '/z mile north & 600' east of Salmon Creek. 500' amsl. Level ground. Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: No archaeological potential; research indicates Myers Point Park is man-made land Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered high, undisturbed area on Cayuga Lake — steeper areas have less potential than level areas; reported sites in vicinity (NYSM #5034) Prehistoric: Reports of "traces of occupation" along entire shore (Parker, 1922). Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered high, particularly undisturbed areas on south side of Area H; potential of Pump Station No. 7 considered low, due to disturbance (Photo 65-66) ithacaIa CITY/SCA.PE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area I North side of Ridge Road to Conlon Road Area J Conlon Road to East South Lansing Shore Drive South side of Ridge Road to East Shore Drive Area K East of East Shore Drive to Woodsedge Drive north of Auburn Road to south of Cayuga Vista Drive North of Auburn Road east of East Ridge Drive to Woodsedge Drive Area L East of Conlon Road along Auburn Road to intersection with North Triphammer Road NYSM #5019 Near Terpenning Corners Unidentified Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered moderate, particularly undisturbed open land on north end of Reach Road Historic: Foundation of Schoolhouse (1853) Prehistoric: Considered moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area, but away from steam or spring) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area, but away from stream or spring) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area, but away from stream or spring ) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Considered moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area, but away from stream or spring ) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; ambiguous report of prehistoric site in vicinity of intersection of Auburn and Peruville Roads (NYSM #5019) (See also Area N) Site with same number as burial site on Townley (Townley) Farm, but described as west of Hillcrest Road. Hillcrest Road intersects North Triphammer Road south of Asbury. Terpen- ning Corners is at intersection of North Triphammer Road and Peruville Road. Ambiguity makes that intersection sensitive. ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants - - a --- -- Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Imorovement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area M East of Auburn Road to east edge of project area Area N East Shore Drive south of Cayuga Vista Drive to Asbury Road Rear property line East Shore Drive and Atwater Road Woodsedge Drive east to North Triphammer Road Auburn Road south on North Triphammer Road to south. end of Sharon Drive Line running south from Auburn Road across Atwater Road to East Ridge Road East Shore Drive east along Asbury Road to North Triphammer Road Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate potential due to relative proximity to Gulf Creek (relatively undisturbed area) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed area) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to high (relatively undisturbed area) in general vicinity of reported site (NYSM #5019) Historic: Possible foundations associated with Asbury Meeting House; location of earliest meeting house ambiguous; potential for mill sites along Gulf Creek (1853) Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; but in general vicinity of reported site (NYSM #5019) ithacaIa CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Imarovement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential South end of Sharon Drive along North Triphammer Road to Asbury Road NYSM #5019 (ACP O2) Near Village of South Lansing A109-07-0001 Restricted site information Area O East of North Triphammer Road to Armstrong Road south of Peruville Road and north of Asbury Road Franklin Drive & Maple Drive East of Armstrong Drive to Collins Road between Peruville Road and Asbury Road Historic: Possible foundations associated with Asbury Meeting House; location of second meeting house ambiguous Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; high along Gulf Creek; in general vicinity of reported sites (A109-07-0001 & NYSM 95019) Burial site Site described as. "on Fay Townley Farm near Village of S. Lansing. Near Minnegar Brook. 274-283 amsl. Gentle slope. (Parker, 1922: Site TOMP 02) (See Fig. 1) Parker sites often anecdotal, Parker map suggests it is on Route 34 between Waterwagon Road and Asbury Road. Owasco village Site described as 5 miles northeast of Ithaca. Not possible to site make assessment without further information, but 5 miles north east of Ithaca would be in vicinity of Asbury (possibly associated with Gulf Creek) Historic: Possible mill sites along Gulf Creek (1853) Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; high along Gulf Creek and along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed areas); in vicinity of reported sites (Al09-07-0001 & NYSM #5019) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to high along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed areas); in general vicinity of reported sites (A109-07-0001 & NYSM #5019) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; high along Gulf Creek; in general vicinity of reported sites (A109-07-0001 & NYSM #5019) ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants ■ iii -M= _---� � iii �iii -_ - iris -_ __- >� r � �■�■ r. Siaae IA'Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area P West of East Shore Drive south of Drake Road to Teeter Road 1! End of Teeter Road south to Reach Run Reach Run south to East Lake Road South of East Lake Road to boundary with Village of Cayuga Heights Bolton Point Road Area Q West of East Shore Drive between Asbury Road and Waterwagon Road east to North Triphammer Road Area R East Shore Road south of Waterwagon Road to Burdick Hill Road and east to North Triphammer = M Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low along highway; high along Gulf Creek; in general vicinity of reported site (NYSM #5019) Historic: No archaeological potential - Prehistoric: Potential high; crossing open land (relatively undisturbed area); potential of Pump Station No. 8 considered low due to blasting for road construction Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Potential high south of end of Reach Run along rear property lines and south of Smuggles Path (both relatively undisturbed areas) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Potential high south of end of East Lake Road along rear property lines and south of continuation of line of Smuggles Path (both relatively undisturbed areas); Pump Station No. 9: potential considered low Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Potential high throughout area (relatively undisturbed); Pump Station No. 10 potential considered high Historic: Possible foundations of shop (1853) Prehistoric: Potential high throughout area, particularly along rear property line (relatively undisturbed); in general vicinity of reported site (NYSM #5019) Historic: Possible foundation of Forest City Water Cure & Ladies Seminary (1953) Prehistoric: Moderate in undisturbed areas on Autumn Ridge Circle; moderate to low along North Triphammer Road ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stage IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area S East of North Triphammer south of Asbury Road east to Triphammer Terrace to northeast side of Hillcrest Road East of North Triphammer Road between Hillcrest Road and Cherry Road Northeast of Hillcrest Road between Triphammer Terrace and Warren Road north to Asbury Road Area T East of Warren Road between Asbury Road and Farrell Road South of Farrell Road to Warren Drive and Snyder Road east of Warren Road Area U South of Cherry Road to Bush Lane between North Triphammer Road and Warren Road Historic: Possible mill sites along Gulf Creek (1853) Prehistoric: High along Gulf Creek; moderate to low along highways; moderate to high along West Meadows Drive, East Meadows Drive, and Horvath Drive; moderate along rear property lines (relatively undisturbed areas) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Potential moderate along line of sewer running through open land between North Triphammer Road and Hillcrest Road (potential decreased by lack of stream or spring) Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate potential along streets in area; moderate to high on line of sewer between Asbury Road and Warren Road and from east end of Whispering Pines lane and Arrowood Lane to Warren Road. Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate potential along streets in area; high potential along line of sewer cutting through open land between Warren Road and Farrell Road; identified site on or in immediate vicinity (Moravec Burial Site). Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate potential along streets in area; identified site along Farrell Road east of Warren Road (Moravec Burial Site). Historic: No archaeological potential Prehistoric: Moderate to low potential along highways; moderate along streets in area; moderate along rear property lines; distance from stream decreased sensitivity ithacaIa CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants Stale IA Literature Review and Sensitivitv Analvsis for Ithaca Wastewater Improvement Proiect Table 4: Potential for Proiect Area to Contain Archaeological Sites Identifier Location Type of Site Assessment of Archaeological Potential Area V South of Village of Historic: Potential foundations of schoolhouse (1853) Cayuga Heights boundary Prehistoric: Line runs south along a line at the west end of Sun to line of Burdick Hill Path to intersect with East -Shore Drive at Burdick Hill Road; Road high potential in relatively undisturbed areas; reported village site in general area. South of Burdick Hill Historic: No archaeological potential Road and West of East Prehistoric: Moderate to low potential along highways; Shore Drive to southern moderate to high along rear property lines; reported site on Esty end of project area Hill (A109-07-0003) A109-07-0003 On Route 34 top of Esty Village site Site described as historic village site on Route 34 at top of Esty Hill Hill. In vicinity of Esty Drive and Cayuga Heights Road. Along shores of Cayuga Prehistoric: Reported "traces of occupation" along entire shore Lake between southern (Parker, 1922). boundary of project and Burdick Hill Road ithacala CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants APPENDIX 6 I TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS I Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council 121 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 • Phone: (607) 274-5570 • Fax: (607) 274 5578 • e-mail: ITCTCra tonrnkins-co.ore On the web at: wim.tompkins-co.org/itcic ' Policy Committee: Executive Director: Planning Committee: Barbara Blanchard, Chair Fernando de Aragon, AICP John Guienberger, Chair Ronald E. Anderson, Vice Chair Jonathan Kanter, Vice Chair Jon P. Edinger, P.E., Secretary in July 19, 2002 L1 JUL 2 3 2002 Stuart F. Mesinger, AICP I Senior Planner -Project Manager TC'JdJ OF ITHACA r The Chazen Companies PLANNING, ZONING, ENGINEERING 1407 Route 9, Building 1 ' Clifton Park, NY 12065 Dear Stuart: This memo provides some corrections and additional information for my letter of May 7.2002. Much of the additional information is found in the three enclosed tables, which are updates of tables sent in the first memo. These include: a. Turning Movements for Signalized Intersections -includes data for existing conditions and scenarios 1-3. -Note that this table now includes Warren Rd. and Hwy. 13, which previously was erroneously listed as a Stop Sign Controlled intersection. b. Level of Service for Stop Sign Control Critical Intersections -includes data for existing conditions and scenarios 1-3 c. Turn Movement Listing -this Tmodel output printout reflects existing conditions and is additional to the three turn movement listings sent with the M y letter. As stated in the May 7 letter, ITCTC staff has performed the Tmode12 Travel Demand Model analysis of future development scenarios prepared by The Chazen Companies. The study also includes an analysis of selected stop - sign controlled and signalized intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual Software purchased for this project. Specifically we modeled existing conditions and three future "scenarios" (these were labeled as "cases previously): ' a. Existing Conditions b. Scenario 1 - ftiture scenario based on historic growth rate and patterns of development ' c. Scenario 2 - conditions with the sewer project, but no increased gro,.vth rate d. Scenario 3 - assumes both the sewer project and an accelerated growth rate. again with a hicyher percentage of the growth occurring within the study area Tompkins CountyCity of Ithaca -Village of Cayuga Heights -Village of Lansing -Town of Caroline -Town of DanbyTown of D den -Town of Enfield -Town of Groton•Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing•Town of Newfield -Town of Ulysses- TCAT- Cornell Univetsity-NY State Department of Transportation -Federal Highway Administration -Federal Transit Administration Page 2 of 2 The enclosed replacement documents along with other tables and maps sent with the May 7 letter show the results of the model runs and intersection analyses generated from our traffic analysis for the Wastewater Project. Please contact me if I you need additional information from my office. ' Sincerely, Fernando de Aragon, Al P Staff Director, ITCTC ' Cc: Jonathan Kanter, Town of Ithaca FDEA/fdea Enclosures ' mAitct6wastewater project\report-letter-update d.doc 1 f " ' Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council 121 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 • Phone: (607) 274-5570 • Fax: (607) 274 5578 • e-mail: ITCTCna tomnkins-co.ors On the iveb at: iviviv.tompkins-co.org/itctc Policy Committee: Executive Director: Planning Committee: Barbara Blanchard, Chair Fernando de Aragon, AICP John Gutenberger, Chair Ronald E. Anderson, Vice Chair Jonathan Kanter, Vice Chair Jon P. Edinger, P.E., Secretary ' May 7, 2002 Stuart F. Mesinger, AICP Senior Planner -Project Manager The Chazen Companies 1407 Route 9, Building 1 Clifton Park, NY 12065 Dear Stuart: ' We have performed the Tmode12 Travel Demand Model analysis of future development scenarios prepared by The Chazen Companies. The study also includes an analysis of selected stop -sign controlled and signalized intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual Software purchased for this project. Specifically we modeled three "cases": Case 1 - existing conditions Case 2 - conditions with the sewer project, but no increased growth rate Case 3 - assumes both the sewer project and an accelerated growth rate, again with a higher percentage of the growth occurring within the study area The enclosed documents and maps show the results of the model runs and intersection analyses generated from our traffic analysis for the Wastewater Project. These are as follows: ' Documents A. List: Intersections In Which Turn Movements Were Taken From Tmode12 plus Summary .. Of Modeling for Wastewater Project (1 page) B. Table: Level Of Service Table For Stop Sign Control Critical Intersections (2 pages) C. Table: Turning Movements For Signalized Intersections (2 pages) D. Tmodel2 output printout: Turn Movement Listing-CASEI R TRN (7 pages) E. Tmode12 output printout: Turn Movement Listing-CASE2B. TRN (7 pages) F. Tmode12 output printout: Turn Movement Listing-CASE3B. TRN (7 pages) Tompkins County -City of Ithaca -Village of Cayuga Heights -Village of Lansing -Town of Caroline -Town of DanhyTown of Dryden -Town of Enfield -Town of Groton•Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing -Town of Newfield -Town of Ulysses- TCAT- Comell UniversdyNY State Department of Transportation -Federal Highway Administration -Federal Transit Administration Traffrc Analysis Page 2 of 2 �I Maps G. Case 1 Scenario - Tmode12 output showing P.M. peak hour volumes on model network links in the study area. H. Case 2 Scenario - Tmode12 output showing P.M. peak hour volumes on model network links in the study area. I. Case 3 Scenario - Tmodel2 output showing P.M. peak hour volumes on model network links in the study area. J. Comparison of Case 2 vs. Case 1 - Tmodel2 output showing the difference in P.M. peals hour volumes between Case 2 and Case 1 on model network links in the study area. K. Comparison of Case 3 vs. Case 1 - Tmode12 output showing the difference in P.M. peak hour volumes between Case 3 and Case 1 on model network links in the study area. Document B presents the results of the analysis for the stop sign control intersections using the Highway Capacity 2000 model acquired for this study. Only two intersections saw any change in level of service. Hanshaw Rd. and SR-13 the West Bound and East Bound approaches changed from B to C level of service. Warren Rd. and Hillcrest Rd. the EB approaches changed from A to B level of service. The table in document C is a compilation of the information in documents D, E and F for signalized intersection. Document C present the turning movements for signalized intersections for the three scenarios: Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3. This allows for easy comparison between each Case. ' The maps provide a graphic representation of traffic distributions in the study area. The outputs from the three Case scenarios are presented in three separate maps. Two additional maps show the difference between Case 1 and Case 2 and 3 respectively. These two comparison maps are useful to geographically identify traffic impacts of the each future scenario. Notes Care must be taken when reviewing the results of the Tmode12 analysis. Travel Demand Models are an imperfect tool but in many occasions they offer the only tool to try and measure traffic impacts on future years under different scenarios. The traffic volumes should not be interpreted as actual or expected numbers, more correct would be to note negative and positive trends and their order of magnitude. In all cases it is important to include a good deal of common sense and knowledge of the study area and scenario parameters in the interpretation of results. When reviewing the data for this analysis, Case 1, which is used as a base scenario, represents current conditions, with no future growth projections. It is important when reading the results of future scenario analyses to recall what are the Case 1 current conditions. For example, areas that are currently experiencing congestion but show little change in the future year analysis will continue to be congested. Observations The Summary Of Modeling for Wastewater Project at the bottom of document A presents a bulleted summary of the results of the analysis. In general, the Tmodel2 results from running Case 1, 2 and 3 show very little change in traffic volumes at the critical intersections throughout the model. The Highway Capacity Manual software was used on 22 stop -sign controlled intersections. As described above, only two intersections showed a change of Level of Service and neither was at a critical level. Please note that the HCM software was not used for signalized intersections because the difference in volumes between existing conditions and future scenarios were deemed to be insignificant (see document C), therefore, model results would not have shown any differences. Similar to the intersections, the overall link volumes showed very little change when comparing the three cases. This can be interpreted in different ways. The model identifies origins and destinations and then generates trips and r� Traffic Analysis Page 3 of 3 assigns them to the model road network. The ITCTC model is designed for the P.M. peak hour. In general, the dominant trip origins in the P.M. peak are in downtown City of Ithaca and Cornell University, the County's largest employment areas. In the P.M., peak trips move away from the origins to their destinations, which were assigned in a dispersed manner throughout the study area. This pattern is evident in the model output maps. The arterials road leading out of the P.M. origins show the greatest increases in traffic. These include: N. Aurora St., N. Cayuga St., Hanshaw Rd., Eastshore Drive, Triphammer Rd., Warren Rd. These are the principal north south routes leading to the areas in Lansing where most of the growth was assigned. Ellis Hollow Rd. also shows some increases as result of growth assigned to Traffic Analysis Zones in that area. ' In summary, the low traffic increases resulting from the model runs are probably the result of the broad distribution of trips throughout the study area for the future year scenarios. This had the effect of `diluting' the trip distribution and minimizing severe impact on any one area or corridor. While this type of low density `sprawl' development pattern does tend to show reduced impacts in travel demand models, it has also been proven to have serious transportation management consequences when built. On a positive note, the results of this study show that there is ' sufficient network capacity to promote multi -use nodal development patterns that can reduce the number and length of trips and facilitate coordination with the provision of transit. ' Sincerely, / ' Fernando de Aragon, AICP Staff Director, ITCTC ' FDEA/fdea ' Enclosure mAitct6wastewater projecAreport-(etter.doc I IIntersections in which turn movements were taken from Tmode12 1) Hwy 34 and Hwy 34B — Signalized 2) Hwy 34 and Triphammer — Stop sign control 3) Triphammer and Asbury — Stop sign control 4) Triphammer and Hillcrest — Stop sign control 5) Triphammer and Oakcrest — Stop sign control 6) Ramps at Hwy 13 and Triphammer — Signalized 7) Warren Road and Hwy 13 — Signalized 8) Hanshaw and Warren — Stop sign control 9) Warren and Asbury — Stop sign control 10) Hillcrest and Warren — Stop sign control 11) Warren and Brown — Signalized 12) Warren and Forest Home —Stop sign control 13) Hanshaw and Cayuga Heights — Stop sign control 14) Hanshaw and Triphammer west community corners intersection — Stop sign control 15) Hanshaw and Triphammer east community corners intersection — Stop sign control 16) Hanshaw and Pleasant Grove — Stop sign control 17) Hwy 13 and Day — Signalized 18) Court and Fulton — Signalized 19) Court and Meadow — Signalized 20) Freese and Hwy 366 — Stop sign control ' 21) Freese and Hanshaw — Stop sign control 22) Hanshaw Hwy 13 — Stop sign control and ISummary of modeling for Wastewaster project • Saw very little change in traffic volumes at the critical intersections throughout the model. • Performed a Highway Capacity analysis for all of the stop sign control intersections listed above. Only 2 intersections saw any change in level of ' service. Hanshaw and Hwy 13, the WB and EB approaches changed from a B to a C level of service. Warren and Hillcrest, the EB approach changed from an A to a B level of service. This can be seen in the attached printouts. ' • Saw very little change in overall link volumes comparing all three cases. On a quick glance at the model print out it appears that there is less than a 50 vehicle increase or decrease in volume for any link. In most cases there is less than 20 ' vehicle increase or decrease on the links. • Did not perform a Highway Capacity analysis for the signalized intersections. When looking at the turn movement counts from Tmodel2 most of the intersections did not vary in volume. If they did have a change in volume it was less than 25 vehicles and only on one approach. This can be seen in the attached printouts. Turning Movements for Signalized Intersections Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Through Right Left Through Right I Left Through Right I Left Through Right Hwy 34/Hwy 34B Existing 3121 01 178 0; 01 0 01 1271 159 49 j 1961 0 Scenario 3351 01 194 01 01 0 01 1341 186 841 1941 0 Scenario 2 3371 01 208 01 01 0 01 1371 191 88i 1951 0 Scenario 3 3521 01 223 01 01 0 01 1401 193 931 2041 0 .�;' :'can ,.'N`-`�•"`` �',� .E; 'sr, :J?"u `".•t°'�;. '-"'yg.X eYY M.t,.'S' F'k' r5`, aye<= y. ,.��. � .. >k=`"'s ?'1"Y.'n^ •,C,- as n- ai- .9?''7:,,'.a> ;z�: ;#.yy„�::>• ,a;-A:,i•L -•+«r_'F�.. n,2i^ .L-.ti.�ii..•,,.r, .k�K. Hwy 13 North Ramp at Triphammer 1 1 1 1 1 1 Existing 8361 6691 0 4891 4181 0 01 01 489 01 01 167 Scenario 11011 8351 0 8211 6491 0 01 01 821 01 0! 266' Scenario 2 11271 8591 0 8121 6441 0 01 01 812 01 01 268' Scenario 3 11611 8881 0 8111 6431 0 01 01 811 01 01 273' Hwy 13 South Ramp at Triphammer Existing 4141 111; 0 216 ! 420' ' 0 4061 01 160 0! 0:` 0 Scenario 5431 142! 0 354! 648: 0 406 01 165 0 0. 0 Scenario 2 548; 138 0 353:` 638; 0 423; Oj 163 0' 0: 0 Scenario 3 5581 140: 0 354. 634 0 441' 01 162 0: 0. 0 Warren and Hwy 13 Existing 1881 492; 78 115 238 597 47: 598' 80 391 874 204 Scenario 262' 579 99 156 303 682 69 761t 80 459 942 259 Scenario 2 2621. 575 90 166 316 682 66 755: 84 454 915 253 Scenario 3 246': 585. 85 151 295 667 70 766! 84 463 920 243 Warren and Brown Existing 01 378', 93 31: 820 0 224' 01 91 0 0 0 Scenario 01 448 110 42: 967 0 198 0 170 0. 0 0 Scenario 2 01 4681 93 38 979• 0 164! 01 152 0 0: 0 Scenario 3 01 4601 107 43: 944 0 191' 01 177 0', 0' 0 Hwy 13and Dav cx/uuog /61 35/1 O 1331 1352i 14 631 261 O 1389| 115i O Gmanahn1 82 416O 1721 16501 16 71' 241 O 14O4' 1OO' O Scenario 721 4241 O 109' 1637' 16 61' 24' O 1405i 104| U Scenario 711 4281 O 6U� �4 0- 13A7i 1O3| 0 . Court and Fulton Existing O| O| O 4Q| 1S34 D D| O| O 233| Ui O Scenario U O| O 73 182U� O ' Scenario O� O| O 73' 1796' O Scenario Oj 01 0 721 1782O . .Court and Meadow Existing O| 1594 Oi O| 01 O 281 Scenario O 1634 QQ O| O| O � Scenario U| 16441 93 01 O O 361' Scenario 01 16281 92 O| O| O Honnhawand Hwy. 13 - --- ''----- ----^``-~-~-``— Ex/song 43 364 3 9 548 U O 3 411 1 1 4 Scenario 36 438 3 14 674 O O 8 391 1 3 15 Scenario 35 430 4 18 848 O 0 11 34' 1 2 16 Scenario 35 435 5 21 685 0 O 12 34 2 3 18 TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:36 PM 07-19-2002 Page 1 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 1 FOR NODE 475 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 0 v1 LT: 0 1^ • 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 0 I < 5081 RT: 0 1 245 < 475 476 1199 0 982 0 0 476 0 127 0 159 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 1199 196 0 0 49 0 0 TH: 127 TH: 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 159 LT: 49 982 312 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 2861 LT: 312 I 305 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 I 208 v1 RT: 178 1^ 490 TURN MOVEMENT # 2 FOR NODE 472 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 101 v1 LT: 8 1^ 99 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 93 I 2261 RT: 0 1 162 < 472 473 471 469 491 0 0 473 0 53 0 78 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 4 471 63 0 4 95 0 0 TH: 53 TH: 63 469 0 8 0 93 0 0 RT: 78 LT: 95 491 163 238 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 1311 LT: 163 1 299 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 95 I 266 v1 RT: 238 1^ 496 TURN MOVEMENT # 3 FOR NODE 491 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 266 v1 LT: 21 1^ 496 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 236 1 ----------------------------------_______ < 471 RT: 9 1 52 < 491 492 490 472 1201 0 0 492 0 66 10 5 0 0 LT: 10 RT: 24 490 4 0 24 24 0 0 TH: 66 TH: 4 472 9 21 0 236 0 0 RT: 5 LT: 24 1201 34 70 462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 811 LT: 34 1 157 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 462 1 265 v1 RT: 70 I^ 566 TURN MOVEMENT # 4 FOR NODE 1201 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 266 v1 LT: 38 1^ 567 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODES NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 228 1 01 RT: 0 1 92 < 1201 0 1202 491 518 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 92 1202 0 0 92 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 491 0 38 0 228 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 0 518 0 0 475 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 1 38 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 475 1 228 v1 RT: 0 I^ 475 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY & TMODEL2 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 11:53:36 7- - PM 0 19 2002 Page 2 File <RUN231O.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 5 FOR NODE 546 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 237 v1 LT: 0 1^ 574 /ORIG -NODEI-NODE2- NODE3 -NODE4 -NODE5-NODE6 I TH: 236 1 < 341 RT: 1 1 0 < 546 547 0 1005 564 0 0 547 0 0 2 24 0 0 LT: 2 RT: 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 1005 1 0 0 236 0 0 RT: 24 LT: 0 564 33 0 572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 261 LT: 33 1 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 572 1 260 v1 RT: 0 1^ 605 TURN MOVEMENT # 6 FOR NODE 574 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 907 v1 LT: 489 1^ 0 /ORIG N0DE1 N0DE2 NODE3 NODE4 N0DE5 N0DE6 I TH: 418 1 8361 RT: 0 1 0 < 574 565 575 0 582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 565 0 489 0 418 0 0 RT: ----0-- LT: ----0-- 575 836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 836 1 489 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 418 v1 RT: 0 1^ 836 TURN MOVEMENT # 7 FOR NODE 575 ' PIVOT-DEST--DEST--DEST--DEST--DEST--DEST- 0 v1 LT: 0 1^ 836 /ORIG N0DE1 N0DE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODES NODE6 1 TH: 0 1 ----- < 01 RT: 0 1 167 < 575 0 0 574 581 0 0 574 0 0 0 489 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 167 578 0 0 167 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 489 LT: 0 581 0 0 669 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 4891 LT: 0 1 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 669 1 489 v1 RT: 0 1^ 669 ' TURN MOVEMENT # 8 FOR NODE 585 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 636 v1 LT: 216 1^ 765 /ORIG N0DE1 N0DE2 N0DE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 420 1 < 01 RT: 0 1 0 < 585 0 586 581 589 0 0 587 0 0 351 160 0 0 LT: 351 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 581 0 216 0 420 0 0 RT: 160 LT: 0 589 0 0 414 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 5111 LT: 0 1 216 > ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 414 1 580 v1 RT: 0 1^ 414 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I------ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY & TM0DEL2 I ----------------------------------------------------------------- TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:36 PM 07-19-2002 Page 3 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 9 FOR NODE 589 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 580 v1 LT: 0 1^ 111 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 580 1 < 4141 RT: 0 1 0 < 589 585 0 586 597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 585 0 0 0 580 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 0 597 414 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 414 I 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 111 1 580 vl RT: 0 I^ 525 TURN MOVEMENT # 10 FOR NODE 569 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 835 v1 LT: 0 1^ 557 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 238 1 < 13831 RT: 597 1 710 < 569 580 0 570 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 65 568 598 0 65 47 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 598 1 570 571 597 188 0 0 0 492 238 0 0 0 0 0 RT: ----0-- LT: ---47-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 188 1 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 492 1 285 v1 RT: 0 1^ 680 TURN MOVEMENT # 11 FOR NODE 571 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 286 v1 LT: 115 I^ 680 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 171 I 01 RT: 0 1 0 < 571 0 568 569 601 0 0 579 0 874 391 204 0 0 LT: 391 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 874 TH: 0 569 0 115 0 171 0 0 RT: 204 LT: 0 601 0 78 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 14691 LT: 0 1 1067 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 289 1 375 v1 RT: 78 I^ 367 TURN MOVEMENT # 12 FOR NODE 1037 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 181 v1 LT: 59 I^ 168 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODES NODE6 I TH: 60 1 RT: 62 1037 621 1041 613 1046 0 0 ===1931 I====151-< 621 0 204 54 7 0 0 LT: 54 RT: 20 1 1 0 20 10 0 0 TH--204-- TH: ' 613 613 62 62 59 0 60 0 0 RT: 7 LT: 10 1046 10 60 94 0 0 0 -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 2651 LT: 10 1 323 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 94 1 77 v1 RT: 60 1^ 164 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY & TMODEL2 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:36 PM 07-19-2002 Page 4 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 13 FOR NODE 495 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 0 v1 LT: 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5.N0DE6 I TH: 0 751 RT: 0 495 496 989 0 507 0 0 ' 496 989 0 27 25 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 LT: TH: 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 58 507 48 0 0 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 831 LT: 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0. 58 v1 RT: 0 TURN MOVEMENT # 14 FOR NODE 1202 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 157 v1 LT: 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODES NODE4 NODES N0DE6 I TH: 150 < 911 RT: 7 1202 1201 0 998 528 0 0 1201 0 0 2 35 0 0 LT: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 998 7 0 0 150 0 0 RT: 35 528 84 0 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 371 LT: 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 267 185 v1 RT: 0 TURN MOVEMENT # 15 FOR NODE 548 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 627 v1 LT: 0 ' /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODES NODE4 NODES NODE6 I TH: 627 < 01 RT: 0 548 0 0 549 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 545 0 0 91 224 0 0 TH: 0 549 0 0 0 627 0 0 RT: 0 550 0 0 378 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 378 851 v1 RT: 0 TURN MOVEMENT # 16 FOR NODE 550 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 851 v1 LT /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODES NODE6 I TH: ______________________ < 01 RT: 550 0 1015 548 570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 548 0 31 0 820 0 0 RT: 0 570 0 93 378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 820 v1 RT 31 820 0 0 378 93 I^ 0 i I 27 < RT: 0 TH: 27 LT: 0 I 25 > I 1^ 48 1^ 269 I I 0 < RT: 0 TH: 0 LT: 0 1 0 > I 1^ 351 1^ 469 I I 315 < RT: 91 TH: 0 LT: 224 I 0 > I 1^ 378 1^ 378 I 1 0 < RT: 0 TH: 0 LT: 0 1 124 > I 1^ 471 I ITHACA-TOM KINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL ITHACA, NY & TMODEi,2 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:36 PM 07-19-2002 Page 5 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 17 FOR NODE 653 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 70 vl LT: 14 1^ 188 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODES NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 0 1 < 2041 RT: 56 1 238 < 653 644 664 1046 0 0 0 644 0 198 98 0 0 0 LT: 98 RT: 90 664 148 0 90 0 0 0 TH: 198 TH: 148 1046 56 14 0 0 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 2961 LT: 0 1 212 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 0 v1 RT: 0 I^ 0 TURN MOVEMENT # 18 FOR NODE 1028 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 41 v1 LT: 3 1^ 76 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 38 1 01 RT: 0 1 143 < 1028 0 1191 1029 639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 5 1191 0 0 5 138 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 1029 0 3 0 38 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 138 639 0 92 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 1 95 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 71 1 176 vl RT: 92 1^ 163 TURN MOVEMENT # 19 FOR NODE 618 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST •DEST 368 v1 LT: 0 1^ 470 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 289 1 < 1951 RT: 79 1 0 < 618 1038 0 611 617 0 0 1038 0 0 22 51 0 0 LT: 22 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 611 79 0 0 289 0 0 RT: 51 LT: 0 617 116 0 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 731 LT: 116 1 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 448 1 340 vl RT: 0 1^ 564 TURN MOVEMENT # 20 FOR NODE 617 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 0 v1 LT: 0 1^ 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 0 1 5641 RT: 0 1 457 < 617 618 622 0 1039 0 0 618 0 223 0 117 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 622 392 0 0 65 0 0 TH: 223 TH: 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 117 LT: 65 1039 172 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 3401 LT: 172 1 356 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 182 vl RT: 1333 1^ 305 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I------ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY& TMODEL2 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:31 PM 07-19-2012 Page 6 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 21 FOR NODE 622 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 356 v1 LT: 238 I^ 457 ' /ORIG I TH: *118 I -NODE1 -NODE2 -NODE3 -NODE4 -NODES-NODE6 < 01 RT: 0 1 247 < 622 0 621 617 1047 0 0 ' 0 621 0 0 0 0 0 206 0 41 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 TH: 0 RT: TH: 206 0 617 0 238 0 118 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 41 1047 0 76 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 1 314 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 251 1 159 vI RT:. 76 I^ 327 TURN MOVEMENT # 22 FOR NODE 658 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 1464 v1 LT: 98 1^ 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODES NODE6 I TH: 1352 1 < 401 RT: 14 1 89 < 658 264 657 0 674 0 0 264 0 71 0 36 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 657 26 0 0 63 0 0 TH: 71 TH: 26 635 14 98 0 1352 0 0 RT: LT: ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---36-- ---63-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 1071 LT: 0 1 169 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 1451 v1 RT: 0 1^ 0 TURN MOVEMENT # 23 FOR NODE 657 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 169 v1 LT: 133 1^ 1762 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 0 1 891 RT: 0 1 0 < 657 658 659 634 0 0 0 674 13 115 1369 0 0 0 LT: 1369 RT: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH: 115 TH: 0 658 0 133 36 0 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 0 659 76 0 357 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 14971 LT: 76 1 248 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 357 1 0 v1 RT: 0 1^ 433 ' TURN MOVEMENT # 24 FOR NODE 727 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 1583 v1 LT: 49 1^ 0 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODES NODE6 I TH: 1534 1 01 RT: 0 1 223 < 727 0 709 0 726 0 0 =_________ _____--_--_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 709 0 0 0 223 0 0 TH: 0 TH: 0 695 0 49 0 1534 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=_________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 01 LT: 0 1 49 > ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 —' 1757 v1 RT: 0 1^ 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY & TMODEL2 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TURN MOVEMENT LISTING 12:53:36 PM 07-19-2002 Page 7 File <RUN2310.TRN> RUN 231 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WASTEWATER PROJECT TURN MOVEMENT # 25 FOR NODE 709 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 0 v1 LT: 0 1^ 1658 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 0 1 ----- < 2231 RT: 0 1 259 < 709 727 708 699 0 0 0 727 0 20 28 0 0 0 LT: 28 RT: 36 708 223 0 36 0 0 0 TH: 20 TH: 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 0 LT: 0 723 0 81 1594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 481 LT: 0 1 101 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TH: 1594 1 0 vl RT: 81 1^ 1675 TURN MOVEMENT # 26 FOR NODE 1052 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 41 v1 LT: 13 1^ 58 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODES NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 18 1 3351 RT: 10 1 316 < 1052 662 1056 623 646 0 0 ' 662 0 613 9 77 0 0 LT: 9 RT: 1 1056 309 0 1 6 0 0 TH: 613 TH: 309 623 10 13 0 18 0 0 RT: 77 LT: 6 646 16 4 48 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 6991 LT: 16 I 630 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 48 1 101 v1 RT: 4 1^ 68 TURN MOVEMENT # 27 FOR NODE 623 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 0 v1 LT: 0 1^ 0 /ORIG I TH: 0 1 ' -NODE1 -NODE2 -NODE3 -NODE4 -NODE5 -NODE6 < 1431 RT: 0 1 122 < 623 624 1031 0 1052 0 C 624 0 - 198 0 29 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 0 1031 ill 0 0 11 0 0 TH: 198 TH: ill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT: 29 LT: 11 1052 32 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 2271 LT: 32 1 223 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 0 1 40 v1 RT: 25 1^ 57 TURN MOVEMENT # 28 FOR NODE 616 PIVOT DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST DEST 557 vl LT: 9 1^ 366 /ORIG NODE1 NODE2 NODE3 NODE4 NODE5 NODE6 I TH: 548 I < 441 RT: 0 I 6 < 616 1031 608 615 619 0 0 1031 0 3 0 41 0 0 LT: 0 RT: 4 606 1 0 4 1 0 0 TH: 3 TH: 1 615 0 9 0 548 0 0 RT: 41 LT: 1 619 43 2 364 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 441 LT: 43 1 14 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TH: 364 1 ' 590 vl RT: 2 I^ 409 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ITHACA_TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY & TMODEL2 1 --------------------------------------------------------- � a � 0 s A SR3YB Ra�D D ( PE!'uviccE RAND) � r / m l�oocN Ro� SR 3YCi Srt3'!d__ _��a'�� / r o r\ i- a L ✓'. IA � /jSEUi<Y 20/tD a e ti y I im i I Nam//n/ /co. �9 n s y Q J 0 AS ^Zo, > y 3 v"60 CASEIB.LLX Case I ITC96G35.NDE ITC96G35.DAF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL 'UR:19B33/24925 04-23-2002 ITHACA—TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY L., 2", TM Case 2 NOWZ ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL. ITHACA. NY _ff __ __ CASE2B.LLX ITC96G35.NDE ITC96G35.DAF LL:10541/14369 UR:20422/25568 04-23-2002 :j I �I v----� -------------- J.. �.. ;la Tm Case 3 T#091/ 2 ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY 1 CASE3B.LLX ITC96G35.NDE ITC96G35.DAF LL:10467/14170 UR:22414/27580 04-23-2002 TM Compare Case 2 to Case I 1#0911 2 ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MODEL ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ITHACA, NY CCASE2A.LNX ITC96G35.NOE ITC95G35.DAF LL:10246/14037 UR:21750/27315 04-23-2002 I I I �TMODEL 2 ......... . 41 it Compare Case 3 to Case I ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ITHACA-TOMPKINS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL. ITHACA• NY MODEL CCASE3.LNX ITC96G35.NOE ITC96G35.DAF LL:10172/i4236 UR:2315i/27115 04-23-2002 APPENDIX 7 I FISCAL IMPACT WORKSHEETS TABLE X. Fiscal Impact Assessment of School District Budgets. EXPENDITURES (Residential Only) Ithaca City SD 1 Ithaca City SD 2 Ithaca City SD 3 Lansing Central SD 1 Lansing Central SD 2 Lansing Central SD 3 Dryden SD 1 Dryden SD 2 Dryden SD 3 School Budget 68,242,650 68,242,650 68,242,650 17,362,209 17,362,209 17,362,209 22,597,415 22,597,415 22,597,415 Enrollment 5,599 5,599 5,599 1,341 1,341 1,341 2,031 2,031 2,031 Expenditure per Student 12,188.36 12.188.36 12,188.36 12,947.21 12,947.21 12,947.21 11,126.25 11,126.25 11,126.25 Number of Projected Students 104 122 347 271 349 502 17 21 72 _ I TQtal3P�ojecfeilyEXPeLlifitG'rem[la sgd�on f rolectpil;R sidetitfal(DeVe'I'oarrieiif 1¢? 2;9�3 98' �t8d 6fi jg2l* ":SOW%�! 4}2??�730�fi3 3jS{�jf228 4ti521�839�09j�' 615O5y589�7�" tlg4�gbv8 �33°3&t � 796}3�535'it CALCULATION OF PROJECTED STUDENTS .-, � �•Lans Pr ed Po lahon.-: --. > , :., 86 - `11 2 ��156`� '-1393` t310-� Zd % of Lansing (T) that are Students 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 Projected Students from Lansing (T) 16.08 20.94 29.17 260.49 338.47 477.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Lansin•'206.�'- - -12.7 % Lansing M that are Students 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7~ 12.7 Projected Students from Lansing (V) 26.16 26.16 58.93 10.41 10.41 24.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..; _ :�• - . _ ... - :D ilen'Proecfeii'Po' i ry 1 Pu .' 95,• 14 8 _ ... _ . % of Dryden that are Students _ 18.4 18.4 _ 18.4 18.4 18.4 , . 18.4- 18.4 18.4 - f 18.4 Projected Students from Dryden 62.192 74.704 258.52 0.368 0.368 0.368 17.48 20.976 71.576 Number of Projected Students 104 122 347 271 349 502 17 21 72 REVENUE RESIDENTIAL Average House Cost 155,097 155,097 155,097 177,517 177,517 177,517 119,816 119,816 119,816 ' # Projected Households in Each SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School Tax Rate 19.94 19.94 19.94 19.50 19.50 19.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 T al R d ecteBkRevenuesi ased�or,�l;fojected!Residdritiay©eitelopfn "t Oi OWMrwM&99WkM00 Q0 0 Q` '00 0'QO 04 Q 00 RESIDENTjtA�NEtT4G7kINiLOSSjONiSGHO,O,I�DIS;TjRICjCStBl10GETSr+�4�'�'1Mr2!9:03698" _f48¢j676062f 4r486!86' 33,a8 523 796137.2jb7 GOMMERMAL School Tax Rate 19.94 19.94 19.94 19.50 19.50 19.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 Average Cost of Commercial Development 52.05 52.05 51.88 45.93 45.93 45.67 40.00 40.00 40.00 Total Value of Projected Commercial Development 984,024 984,024 998,738 319,818 319,818 334,651 251,778 251,778 270,975 COM- M.M IALAWTAGRINION1%CHQ-00t01SirRIGT4F3U0.GEiTtS f9t i "`" �ic�4i!?21 t9°9� 4 6t236 6 36L i5 5169 5�5*539.9]{1i. StSa,3,31Y. _9,C31 5- Si1S25312E235' #f465;U4t41d_Spa; t;,y�s$3!SD5�992x13 ?5i5;fi02?S4 '�6!99,9';0'S9rQ6 i S188;947, � 52 845 579_b?41f1t06' L�� T-I, 1 ti ITABLEX. F'is:�alImpact A3sessrneni of Scicol Disirict 31.dgets. CALCULATION OF AIMPAG E COST OF CON' NIHRCLrd. )EUELCIPIVIEI'IT DER 1,17 N EACFI SCH JC1L DISTRICT (Caere 1 thru 3) ! CALCt1L<,TION 01= PROJECTED NJMBFR OF H+HOUa'EHCLCS IN fS4r,H SCHOOL DISTRICT• OAS E:S 1 THRIJ 3 Town of Dryden Cost of Commercial Development per SF 40 tthaca City School District Projected Pr, pulalion 4ver•age Hou aehol J Size # Households Town of Lansing Cost of Commercial Development per SF 40 CASTE 1 Village of Lansing Cost of Commercial Development per SF 55 T Lansing 86 2.33 36.91 Ithaca City School Distri ct V,_Lansing 206 2.06 1CO.00 CASE Relative % Relative %1100 T_Dryden 338 2.43 139.C9 Iroje:cted SF of Crimrne-cia I Deveopment in'r Drylert 176,360 17.9 0.• 8 Total # Frojecied 1oLlsehods in SD 276.00 F rajected SF of Conmer:ia Deve opnent in l_Laimiinrl 16,848 1.7 0.02 Froject-dSFofConmer;131Devecprtenth1,_Lanerinp 790,816 80.4 0.130 CASIE2 Total Projected SF of Cornmurcial Der elopmen: 934,02.1 T, Lansing 112 2.33 413.0" Average Gosl of Corn ner•ci al Oevelopinerd in Mace Ci• y Schoc I Distrir_: 5;LO:i V, Lansing 206 2.06 1CO.00 CASE S: l_Dryden 406 2.43 1E7.C8 projected SF of Cnmrne-ci:.I Development in T_Dryian 176,360 17.9 0., 8 Total # Frojeci�-lousehods in SD 316.16 F roject3l SF of Coiimer:ia Deveopnent in l-Lansinp 16,848 1.7 0.(72 C:c Frojected SF of nmerr:ial Deve opnent ii t. Lanetinp 790,816 80.4 0.110 CAS•E3 TOM Pnje:ted SF LdConimnrcial Derelopmen: 984,02.1 T,_Lansing 156 2.33 66.91.3 Average Gosl of Cc rn rierci ai 1)eveloprnent in Hiaea CS, le SchOr• I Distric: 610:i V.-Lansing 464 2.06 225.24 CASE :• l Dryden 1405 2.43 578.19 31-ejected SF of Comrnenis I Dewaopmenl. in'r Dryieri 189,789 19.0 0.19 Total # 11rojecled -IouSeho ds in SD 870.38 I'rojecte<:I SF of Covmer;ia Deveopnent in l Lam inil 18,133 1.8 0.02 1:rojectadSFofConmen;ialDeve opnentin+. Lamrinrl 790,816 79.2 0:19 Lan:singC.ertralSD Total Projected EF of Commercial Derelopmen: 998,733 CASIE 1 Average C'osl of Coin rrercial Development In Ithaca Cl-IfSchoc I Distric: 5*121 T,=Lansing 1393 2.33 597.E5 V, Lansing 82 2.06 39.8�1 Dryden Central School District i'_Dryden 2 2.43 C.82 CASE Total # Projected -Iouseho ds in SD 638.48 Drojected 3F of Grmrneroial Dawloprnent in'r Drl,,J.ari 251,778 10).0 1.00 F roject--d SF of Cororner:ia Deve op neat In l _Lansinl I 0 0.0 0.00 CASTE 2 1rojected SF of Ceirmer.:ial Deve oprient in 4 Lan:ring 0 0.0 0.00 T, Lansing 1810 2.33 ri6.E2 Total PrDje red SF of Comrnerciai Deteloprnen: 251,77+3 V, Lansing 82 2.06 39.81 Average Cost of Convierciad 1: evelcpriwnt in Rhe Dryden Ce 3trA Schoc I Distric: 40.011 l_Dryden 2 2.43 C.82 CASE S: Total # Projected-iouseho ds in SD 817.46 �rojected 3F el Cumrne*ci 1 Development in'r Dry Jeri 251.778 100.0 1.00 Fr,ojeect•aJSFofCLtnmer:ia Deveopnentin'I_Lanaiinp 0 0.0 0.00 CASIE3 1: rojecterl SF of Conmerr:ial Deve olorient in t. Lamiinp 0 0.0 0.00 T,_Lansing 2556 2.33 1097.00 Total Pnje:ted SF of Conirrwrcial Deteloprnen: 251,Tr+3 V.-Lansing 190 2.06 9:2.23 Average Cost of Comuverchil Cevelcpniant in the Dr,,clen Ce itral Schoc I Distric: CASE :• 441.00 l'_Dryden Total # Projected-louseho ds in SD 2 2.43 C.82 1190.06 ' Irojected SF of Cnmrne•cif l Devcaopment in'r DryJen 270,975 10).0 1.00 Froject-dSFofColimer:ia Deveopnentin"1_Lamiinll 0 0.0 0.00 Dryden Certral SO Frojected 5F of Conmen:ial Deve opnent li 4 Lanerintl 0 0.0 0.00 CASTE 1 Total Projected SF of Commercial Deteloprnen: 270,97!i T,_Lansing 0 2.33 CDC Average Cost of Conw-terciM L evairpna:nt in the Dryden Lie Ih•a11 ScI'ICC I Distric: 441.00 V, Lansing 0 2.06 C.00 ! i_Dryden 95 2.43 39.09 Lansing Central School District Total # Projected-IoLISeho ds in SO 30.09 CASE ' 'rajected SF of Comrne•c1:1 Development in'r Dryden 0 0.0 0.00 CASTE 2 Froject--ISFofConmer:Sa.Deve opnentini_Lamiig1 193,411 60.5 0.130 T Lansing 0 2.33 0 Froject:cl SF of Conmen:ial Deve oprient h t, Lanmrintl 126,407 3,4.5 0.40 V, Lansing 0 2.06 0 Tot at Pr�je$ed SF of Commercial Der elopmen: 319,13M l_Dryden 114 2.43 46.9.1 Average Cost ofCormi-ercia DeveloprvrentinlheLansing CeitraiSchocIlDistric: 0.93 Total#Projected-lousehodsinSD 413.9.1 CASES: Irajected SF al Cnmrne r.isl Devi!loln'nent in'f_DgrJarl 0 0.0 0.00 CASTE 3 F rojected SF of Ceiimeria Deveopnent in •I_Lans ind 193,411 60.5 0.60 T,_Lansing 0 2.33 C.0c Froject?d SF of Ccnmen;ial Deve opnent h r. Lan;iinll 126,407 39.5 0.* V.-Lansing 0 2.06 C.0c Total Pnje;led SF of Conrmracial Derelopmen: 319,81;3 l_Dryden 389 2.43 1e0.Ca Average Cost of Comrlerc41 Cevelopnient Our Lf a Lansing Cc •rtrA Schoc I Distric: 45.93 Total # Projected-l0useho ds in SD----- 160.08 ' CASE : 'ra,jecled SF of Comrne'cial Develolrtnentin'fDryJan 0 0.0 0.00 ----- -------�-^-� --- F rojected SF of Conner:ia Deveopnent in l Lamiintl 208,244 62.2 0.62 FmJactaSFofCommercialDeveconent , O.SB peSnn TOW Pnjeted SF fi Cornnu:rcial Doi clomen: 334,65 - Avers( a Cost ofCarnn ercia D :veto anent in 1heLansinq Central Schar I Distric; 46.6" -3?'.8- -- TABLE X. Fiscal lrrlpaCt.Assersment of Municcipal FiranCEG tPRCiJEi;TE1) 1-XP1T�IDIT1NtES ----- ------- ------_.---.---------..--.----_-•-.--.----.--.---___•-___.-- --- -- --- -.-._.-.----.---- V Lar:rinel -1 V-Lansing 2 V Lansing o; T-,Laming 1 T LAnsing ,! T Unnsing 3 T'_Dryden 1 T_Dr Eden 2 T•, Dryden 3 Total Municipal Expenditure 3,610,480 3,610,480 3,610,480 5,408,603 5,408,603 5,408,603 4,739,822 4,739,822 4,739,822 Municipal Population" 3,417 3,417 3,417 10,521 10,521 10,521 13,532 13,532 13,532 County Population' 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 95,501 Existing total Local Nonresidential Real Property Value 162,491,300 162,491,300 162,491,300 381,941,560 381,941,560 381,941,560 214,129,667 214,129,667 214,129,667 Total Local Real Property Value 314,984,638 314,984,638 314,984,638 669,019,261 669,019,261 669,019,261 529,856,867 529,856,867 529,856,867 ' Average Value Nonresidential Parcels 655,793 655,793 655,793 428.186 428,186 428,186 130,170 130,170 130,170 Average Value of All Parcels 345,000 345,000 345,000 201,694 201,694 201,694 117,903 117,903 117,903 Projected Population Increase 289 289 654 1,478 1,921 2,712 435 522 1,796 Projected SF of Commercial Development 917,313 917,313 917,313 210,340 210,340 226,379 428,120 428,120 460,764 ' Average Cost of Commercial Development per SF 55 55 55 40 40 40 40 40 40 Refinement Goeffi.siont ill Irput io use n ook••u1)table 1.90 1.90 1.90 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.10 •1.10 1.1C Value from look -up table 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Refinamont Coefff;lont 112. Ir put io ase n ook-u1) table 76.93 76.93 76.93 1935 15.65 21.15 131.56 131.56 141.5E Value from look -up table 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.09 0.09 0.08 T)tallVILinicipa Expenditwe!;AtiributabletoNonresidential J�es 1,832,540 1,862,540 1,862,1i40 3,037,759 3,087,753 3,087,'759 1,915,492 1,915,492 1,915,4.92, ' Residsritial IIdUced E.xpendtures 1,747,9210 1,7,17,940 1,747,040 2,320,844 2,320,1344 2,320,344 2,824,330 2,824,330 2,824,33(: Iunicipal Costs pe-C•apit;a 512 6,12 fi12 2.21 :221 22'1 239 209 20E W.. ;. r e .+. 5 a � n�;' �� .� d it' �"� � � 1 i ,s _ t78 i' "<'.� ,� ) ' y r •a • fi r 3 '- • 81...M (3 1'i`> ,. l "0 Irc:omin,} Fa,:il ty Nonresidential :Ir)perty Value 50,452,215• 60,45212-15 5),452.215 8,413,6)0 8,413,1303 9,055,160 17,-124,830 '17,124, 300 18,430,56C 1�'j-r',. i; ��C s 'UI'i o:' f.1'r' ut' r • ' E35 "1;i€ I I �r� i t r >:w ''$.3 r I' ''� i a ;� �. i : 1 � s s � '1c 13ased on 200) U.S. Censuss PRp.lE1:TEl) ItEVI°hIIJE�i----.--------__._.._._-..__---------------_.---•------------_.---------•--------------__-----_.--. ' V Lansing 1 '1 Lansing:! V 1_ansing 3 T-Lansing 1 T,,.Lansi vg 2 'r Uni ing I T,_C-rydon 1 'r Doyalen 2 T_Cliydiarl 3 COMMERCIAL T)tal'Jalue of "rojeiclecl Commercial Devslop-na:nt 50,4.52,215 50,442,2-15 5),452,215 6,413,630 8,.t13,130) 9,055,160 17,124,830 '17,124,300 18,430,56C Tax Rate 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.70 1.70 1.70 EG r t'. rty M.1• ffd �•^�', '"r"Iy,�� '{ 1V1�1 °'er .il t it 4' 1'f W � w` } yt t Y ,�, RESIDENTL'lL Average Household Size 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.43 2.43 2.43 Projected Population Increase 289 289 654 1,478 1,921 2,712 435 522 1,796 # Households 140 1410 :117 63/1 1324 1,164 179 215 73E Average House Cost 155,097 155,097 155,097 177,517 177,517 177,517 119,816 119,816 119,816 V ra'1 •t �' tF:d..,C � I a) k .,, .., �n :i,' fit �t ' � �' t7 t" , 'a4 { '7 ' f1.' F I' 1 b i �5hy , l�" .r 'ET(- >F"` J =� �R s1 Btf• - ,.Q 4 I,3 ;; 9�,, �� 4 t' E; 1 ,;� CALCULATION OF S4tiLEB TAX REVEVUE Pr000rtion o-' County Poptilatiun 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.11 C.111 CA 0.114 (1.14 0.14 Sales Tax p.:r SF" 190 190 '190 130 19) 190 130 190 19C Proportie-n of S;alr:•s Tex :hat Municipality Rei:eives 0.01 0.011 0.01 0.31 C.01 C.011 0.31 . (1.01 0.011 F'rcjectE:d SF of Retail Develo)meit $55,658 $55,658 555,658 !;,125,330 $125,:39) $'134,!)52 $212,370 $212, 370 $228,56E Projected ~tale:, lax Revenr.e $3,784 S3,784 $3,'184 $26,2.46 •626,243 $28,248 $57,174 $57,174 $61,534 ' Based on Southwas: Area DGEIS APPENDIX 8 AGRICULTURAL DATA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 17 2002 12:16 P.03_ Town of Lansing 2001 Agricultural Profile rNarrative ' The Town of Lansing covers 38,958 acres. Nearly one third of this land is owned or rented by farmers, based on data collected during the 1996 Agricultural District Review. Of the 12,073 acres identified during that review as being involved in farm operations, 8,928 acres are owned by ' farmers and 3,145 acres are rented from their non -farm neighbors. ' 2001 Property Tax Assessment data identifies a total of 12,497 acres receiving Agricultural Assessment, 7,481 owned by farmers and 53,016 rented from their non -farmers neighbors. Typically, Agricultural District Reviews identify more land as agricultural than the amount of land receiving Agricultural Property Tax Assessment. The main reasons for this is that some agricultural enterprises do not meet either the income or acreage minimum requirements to receive agricultural assessment on their property, or that the fanner renting the property does not meet those requirements, or that not all property owned by a farmer is eligible for Agricultural ' Assessment. In Lansing, more agricultural land was identified through the Agricultural Property Tax Assessment data. _ The main reason for this is that during the 1996 Agricultural district Review it was not necessary to identify every agricultural parcel in order to prove to New York ' State that at least half the land in the Agricultural District was actively involved in agriculture. Additionally, many of the farm operations in Lansing are full time operations, making a higher percentage of the town's farms eligible for Agricultural assessment than in other county municipalities. 37 different farmers receive .Agricultural Assessment for property in the town of Lansing. The Agricultural District Review identified 41 farms owning or renting land in Lansing, 6 of which cross town lines into Dryden and/or Lansing or Cayuga County. It is important to note that these ' 6 farm operations involve significant acreage, 4,911 owned and 607 rented acres, beyond Lansing's borders, emphasizing the agricultural relationship between the Towns of Lansing, Dryden and Lansing as well as Tompkins and Cayuga Counties. There may be additional farms crossing municipal boundaries which either did not participate in the Agricultural District Review or did not list land the own or rent outside of Tompkins County. A . ' According to the Agricultural Assessment data, 5,752 owned and rented Lansing acres (nearly half) are of soil classes I-M- soil classes IV and V account for another 2,757 acres. Lansing has more class I-M soils, which are considered to be the most productive agricultural soils, than any other town in the county. The most common agricultural enterprise in the town is dairy farming, although grain and livestock operations are also common. All but 4 farm operations identified in the Agricultural District Review reported involvement in one or more of these agricultural enterprises. About one quarter of the farms indicated two or more enterprises on their farm, most frequently a 'combination that included either dairy, grain or livestock. Two Christmas Tree oparAtiwno Woro ,� atao identified as wcit as one orchard. There may well be changes in actual farina enterprises since COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Eax:6072727088 May 17 2002 12:16 P.04 1 the Agricultural District Review was completed five years ago; for example, we know that there are actually at least 4 orchards in the town as well as at least two horticulture operations that were not identified. However, this information still presents an accurate general picture of the town's agriculture. Of the 41 farms in Lansing identified in the Ag District Review, 15% have a gross annual income of less than $10,000. Another 4411/o gross between $10,000 and $40,000 and 41% have a gross annual income over $40,000. Easily more than half of the farming population is involved in what can be considered full time operations. 27% of Lansing farm operations work farms of 100 to 200 acres, 34% work 200 to 500 acres and ' another 22% farm over 500 acres. These figures include total land farmed, owned and rented, including outside town of Lansing lines. Three of the county's dozen or so farces that work over 1000 acres operate at least in part in Lansing. In contrast to municipalities in the southern and ' western part of the County, farms in Lansing are larger in general and there are more of these larger farms as well. In summation, agriculture continues to be a major economic and cultural contributor to the Town of Lansing, as has historically been the case. Based on Agricultural Assessment data, Lansing ranks Ist in Tompkins County in total farmed acreage, owned and rented, leading the other towns in the western part of the county, including the Towns of Croton. Although Agricultural District Review information indicates Lansing Agriculture may be less diverse than in other parts of the county, this is a feature of incomplete data gathering during the review process. As mentioned earlier, general knowledge of Lansing agriculture identifies operations such as horticulture and orchards that were not identified in the Review. Lansing agriculture remains a strong part of the community. r ' Based on data from the Agriculture District Review Worksheets compiled during the 1996A,gricultural District #I Review and the 2001 Tompkins County Agricultural Property Tar Assessment dara. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 17 2002 12:17 P.05 Town of Lansing Town Agricultural Profile Data Compilation Agricultural Assessment information from the Tompkins County Assessment Office: Total number of farms owning land in Lansing; 37 Total farmed acres, owned: 7,481 Total farmed acres, rented: 5,016 Total 12,497 Farms by size, owned acres only: Acreage #Farm5 SO <50 7 19 50- 99 8 22 100-199 10 27 200-499 9 24 500-999 3 8 ?999 0 Acres of farmland by soil type: Owned &ent la 1b 99 37 Ila 899 553 nb 547 885 IIIa 757 323 IIib 813 839 IVa 1Vb 462 314 Va 1,093 Vb 551 337 Vla 219 212 V1b 160 53 VII 245 231 VM 60 7 IX 16 13 X r COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088. May 17 2002 12:17 P.06 1 Information from the Agricultural District Review: Total number of farms owning or renting land in Lansing: 41 Number of farms that cross town lines: 5 Total acres owned by all farms, including land outside Lansing: 13,839 Total acres rented by all farms, including land outside Lansing: 3,902 Lansing -only acres owned by all Farms: 8,928 . Lansing -only acres rented by all farms: 3,145 rTotal Lansing Total Lansing Operation Tv pe #Farr�c�s Owned Owned Rented Mnd 9 Dairy 11 7,120 3,506 1,866 1,259 • Dairy, Vegetable & Grain 1 383 383 312 312 • Grainy 12 2,190 1,945 1,055 1,055 • Grain & Livestock 5 1,146 13146 100 100 • Grain, Livestock & Hay 1 225 225 • Grain, Livestock & Vegetable 1 1,200 148 150 • Livestock & Vegetable 1 58 58 r• • Livestock 4 740 Vegetable 2 395 740 395 26 393 26 393 • Grain & Christmas Tree 1 57 57 - • Christmas Tree 1 130 130 '�' • Orchard 1 195 195 rFArmms by Size ented a0d Owned Acrga: Total Lansing Acrea_ae #Farms % Acreage # arms NO <50 0 <50 1 2.5 50- 99 7 17 50- 99 7 17 100-199 11 27 100-199 12 29 200-499 14 34 200-499 14 34 500-999 6 15 500-999 6 15 >999 3 7 >999 1 2.5 Farms by Income: t # Income Farms % _ <10,000 6 15 'i 10,000-39,999 18 44 >39,999 17 41. r . r r ,. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 17 2002 12:17 P.07 Differences Between 1996 Ag District Review and 2001 Assessment Information LWd identified s� f$t�ned by owner in 1996 bv.�eceivinn aericultural assessment in 2001: Under 10 acres/$10,000 73 acres Was self farmed, now rented 1,550 acres Unsure 622 acres Land identified as rented farmland in 1996 but not receivina_ agricultural assessment in 2001: Now self farmed, may have new owner 389 acres Unsure 533 acres Farmers receiving_ Agricultural Assessment in 2001 but not participatina in 1996 A District Review: 13 Farmers 1,236 acres J.,andowners RecdtR&A&dctfltqM Assessment for Rented Property_jn 2001 but notPart in 1996 Am District Review_. 24 landowners 1,804 acres. ,based on data from the Agriculture District Review Worksheets compiled during the 1996Agricultural District #1 Review and the 200ITompktns CountyAssessment data. l Lansing Farmland Soil Types based on Agricultural Assessment Data Rented owned 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 DI ■II MM ■ IV ■V ■ VI VII n Vmn ■ ix ■X Lansing Agricultural Operations by Type & Acreage amo--- ■ Total Owned Armly 1/1j TCt' "r %JMD kff'suve r, uve &MY bri um & ' LiW & Veg Tl1R8O& Vegetable Gr & Xmm XmSe Mft OrdaW yeg Lansing Farm Size Comparison,' Total Acreage vs. Lansing -only Acreage Total Farm Acreage 7% 27% ■ <50 ■ 50-99 0 100-.199 0 200-499 r 500-999 ■ >1000 Lansing Farm Acreage 2.5% 2.5% ■ <50 ' ■ 50-99 EM 100-199 0 200-499 r 500-999 0 >1000 Z99' COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 17 2002 12:16 P.02 Lansing proposed Sewer Service & Planning Area Name: Ruth ,buck, 533-4970 Acreage being farmed: 180 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Mark & .Paul Lovendustski (Moravia), S year lease Crops: corn, soybeans Impact of proposed sewer district: Doesn't know much about it Name: Richard Thaler, 272-2314 Acreage being farmed: 67 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Kirby Farms, lease expires at the end of 2002 Crops: corn, wheat, buckwheat Impact of proposed sewer district: ,Snows of proposat doesn't know what inpad might be ' Name: John ,flicks, 273-86.28 Acreage being farmed: 170 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Matt Diedrich, year to year lease Crops: wheat, soybeans, corn, alfalfa Impact of proposed sewer district: farm viability depends of quantity and quality of farmland; this land is shallow, parcels too small and has too much nearby development - he'd like to see district approved so land could be sold more easily ZARL BUTLER: property has been rented by Matt Diedrick up until thisyear, Matt said he's not renting this year (Per John Xicks) I- Name: ,Lawrence (.Pat) Conlon, 533-4.175 Acreage being farmed: 70 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Hardie ,Farms, Inr- Crops: alfalfa, corn Imnpact of proposed sewer district: Thinks proposed district has been in process for about 4 years now and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, although lately looks like may be going backwards Name: Ray Sill, 533-4166 Acreage being farmed:179 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: owner farmed iCrops: corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, barley, hay Impact of proposed sewer district: No interest in seeing this proposed sewer plan approved Name: Rod Kearl, 533=4762 Acreage being farmed: 90 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Mark & Paul Lovendustski (Moravia) Crops: wheat, corn Impact of proposed sewer district: Thinks putting the sewer lines in is a good idea Name: Robers and Carol Stull, 237-0256/2.19S Acreage being farmed: 3 If rented, to whom & length of lease: none rented Crops: vegetables Impact of proposed sewer district: Doesn't know much about it, questioned whether would impact ability to be in the ag district Name: CZ frBuck; 533-4389 Acreage being farmed: 'no acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Ray Sill, S year lease Crops: wheat, hay, corn, soybeans, oats Impact of proposed sewer district: Name: M, au Shulman, 533-7963 Acreage being farmed: 37 acres If rented, to whom & length of lease: Ray Sill, 21 acres; Larry Moore, 14 acres; owner farmed, 2 acres ' Crops: grains, alfalfa, grass, vegetables Impact of proposed sewer district: On one hand, would make development possible, one the other hand, Town has commitment to Protect best ag land (which is to the north) and is channeling growth to the less productive ag land (to the south) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 20 2002 13:26 P.02 Town of Dryden 2001 Agricultural Profile ' Narrative ' The Town of Dryden covers approximately 61,440 acres. About 12% of this land is owned or rented by farmers, based on data collected during the 1996 Agricultural District Review. Of the ' 7,506 acres identified during that review as being involved in farm operations, 6,523 acres are owned by farmers and 983 acres are rented from their non -farm neighbors. 2001 Property Tax Assessment data identifies a total of 9,004 acres receiving Agricultural Assessment, 7,242 owned by farmers and 1,762 rented from non -farmers. Typically, Agricultural District Reviews identify more land as agricultural than the amount of land receiving Agricultural Property Tax Assessment. The main reasons for this is that some agricultural enterprises do not meet either the income or acreage minimum requirements to receive agricultural assessment on their property, or that the farmer renting the property does not meet those requirements, or that not all property owned by a farmer is eligible for Agricultural Assessment. In Dryden, more agricultural land was identified through the Agricultural Property Tax Assessment data. The primary reason for this is that during the 1996 Agricultural district Review it was not necessary to identify every agricultural parcel in order to prove to New York State that at least half the land in the Agricultural District was actively involved in agriculture. Additionally, many of the farm operations in Dryden are full time operations, making a higher percentage of the town's farms eligible for Agricultural Assessment than in other county municipalities. 35 different fanners receive Agricultural Assessment for property in the town of Dryden. The Agricultural District Review identified 26 farms owning or renting land in Dryden, 5 of which cross town lines into Groton or Lansing, or county lines into Cortland County. Again, since the Agricultural District Review of 1996 did not capture a complete picture of agriculture in Dryden, there may be additional farms crossing municipal boundaries. The identification of farm operations that cross municipal borders may help determine areas of mutual agricultural interest between Dryden and its neighbors. 1 Accordingto the Agricultural Assessment data, 2,814 owned and rented Dryden acres are of soil ry types Z-III; more prevalent in the town are soil types V and VZ, which account for 3,686 acres. Over 1,000 additional acres are soil classes V11 and VI11. It is important to note that slope is a determinant in soil classification. As is the case in other parts of the county, some class 'V-VIA soils are good agricultural soils, but they have a slope that is not ideal for many agricultural applications. According to the Agricultural District Review data, the most common agricultural enterprise in the town is dairy farming, with 10 farms accounting for the use of 4,133 agricultural acres in the town. Five livestock operations account for another 886 acres and 5 gram farms for 1,072 acres. Another 1,395 acres are used by farms identifying one or more of these three operations as well as hay production. All but one farm reported their farm enterprises as dairy. arain an&or livestock. `, Three farms lnaicated vegetables, horticulture or aquaculture were also part of their operation. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 20 2002 13:26 P.03 Of the 26 farms in Dryden, 23% have a gross annual income of less than $10,000_ Another 35% gross between $10,000 and $40,000 and 42% having a gross annual income over $40,000. When considered with the Agricultural Assessment data, this information suggests over half of the town's farms are full-time operations Dryden is home to some of the county's largest farms. 700/6, of Dryden farm operations work 100 acres or more: 23% work 100-200 acres, 42% work 200-500 acres and I S% work more than 500 acres. One of the county's dozen or so 1000+ acres fhr ms is located in Dryden. These figures include total land farmed, owned and rented, including outside town of Dryden lines. In summation, agriculture continues to be a major economic and cultural contributor to the Town of Dryden, as has historically been the case. Based on Agricultural Assessment data, Dryden ranks 3d in Tompkins County in total farmed acreage, with Groton and Lansing being 1't and 2"d respectively. These three towns comprise the county's primary agricultural region, the Towns of ' Enfield and Ulysses contain the other significant agricultural land in the county. Dryden's agriculture is diverse, including vegetable and horticultural operations, and many of the town's farms are operated by multi -generational families, both factors indicating a strong agricultural future for Dryden. Based on data from the Agriculture District Review Worksheets compiled during the 1996Agricultural District #1 Review and the 2001 Tompkins County Agricultural Property TaxAssesunent data it COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 20 2002 13:26 P.04 Town of Dryden Town Agricultural Profile Data Compilation Agricultural Assessment information' from the Tompkins County Assessment Office. - Total number of farms owning land in Dryden: 35 Total farmed acres, owned: 7242 Total farmed acres, rented: 1762 Total 9004 Farms by size, owned acres only: cre a #Farms is <50 3 9.5 50- 99 10 29.5 100-199 7 20 200-499 13 37 500-999 2 6 >999 0 Acres of farmland by soil type: O e Rentr, la lb 44 10 IIa nb 705 196 IIIa IIIb 1547 312 TVa 1Vb 118 60 Va 2 18 Vb 1313 456 Vla 23 VIb 1456 418 VII - 355 140 W11 379 128 IX 70 25 X 84 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 20 2002 13:27 P.05 Information from the Agricultural District Review: Total number of farms owning or renting land in Dryden: 26 Number of farms that cross town or county lines: 5 Total acres owned by all farms, including land outside Dryden: Total acres rented by all farms, including land outside Dryden: Dryden -only acres owned by all farms. Dryden -only acres rented by all farms; Ooeration Tune #Forms • Dairy 10 9 Grain & Dairy I . Grain 5 • Grain & Livestock 1 • Grainy, Vegetable & Horticulture 1 • Horticultural Specialties 1 • Livestock 5 • Livestock & Hay 1 • Livestock, Hay & Aquaculture 1 Farms by Size_ Rented and Ow ed cr Total Dryden Acreage #F rms NO Ageatze <50 3 12 <50 50- 99 2 8 50- 99 100-199 6 23 100-199 200-499 11 42 200499 500-999 3 12 500-999 >999 1 3 >999 Farms by Income; 'Income #Farrns % <10,000 6 23 10,000-39,999 9 35 >39,999 11 42 Total caned 3,490 391 1,097 380 78 19 886 180 124 #Fad 3 3 6 10 3 1 6,646 1,079 6,523 983 Dryden Owned 3,490 391 1,002 380 78 19 886 180 96 vv . 12 12 23 38 12 3 Total Re ted 739 45 70 225 Dryden Rented 643 45 70 225 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Fax:6072727088 May 20 2002 13:27 P.06 Differences Between 1996 Ag District Review and 2001 Assessment Information Land identified as_farmed by owner in 1996 but not ltural assessment in 2001: Under 10 acres/$10,000 1154 acres Was farmed by owner, now rented 100. acres Unsure, may no longer be fanned 197 acres Lid identified as tented fgnWand in 1996 buA,not rpceivi & glicul ralgstnent in 2001,; Land now fartned by owner: 173 acres Unsure, may no longer be farmed 199 acres Farmers receiving Agricultural Assessment in 2001 but not participating in 1996 Aa District Review: 16 farmers 2529 acres Landowners receivir Agricultural Assessment for rented property in 2001 but not participating in 1996 Ag District Review: - 12 Landowners 697 acres Based on data from the Agriculture District Review Worksheets compiled during the 19P6Agricultural District #1,Review and the 200ITompkins County Assessment data � - � . � --- � f Dryden Farmland Soil Types based on Agricultural Assessment Data Renttd Owned 0 200 400 600 806 1000 1200 1400' 1600 1800 01 on m ■W ■v H VI EIvU vM ■'x ■ X Co Co m H m X H O Z —TI X O N Co 00 X N 0 N Co O N W Ij 0 Dryden Agricultural Operations by Type &Acreage Wry. Gr&DWry I.n 6n �+I.II�IidIC4 �. 14�]� 1�. I. .diil�ll'.iil �Y�I.�I IJ.jY QW0 1 Gr&lire 1 Gr,Vag &Hmf mri ■ Total Owned Dryden Owned M Total Rented S Dryden Rented r UW live&iby Uw,ray&Aqua m l Dryden Farm Size Comparison, Total Acreage vs. Dryden -only Acreage Total. Farm Acreage _3% ■ <50 ■ 50-99 IM 100-199 Q 200-499 ® 500-999 0 >1000 t3 % Dryden. Farm Acreage 3% ■ <50 ■ 50-99 100-199 91200-499 ® 500-999 t >1000 O�Q 1% O CD m X Z H CO Z w x 0 N N O 00 00 3 N O N O O N r� W N -�1 0 LO APPENDIX 9 � AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPOSED TRANSMISSION MAIN ROUTE IN RELATION TO UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS 0 Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Index map of the Town and Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights showing the area depicted on the large scale map. l.g Area depicted on large-scale map Municipal Boundary State Highway 34 Village of Laasin,q Village of Ca uga Heights 1 2 4 Miles Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect - : Crossing of Unique Natural Area 55 and Proposed Town of Lensing Service Area Wastewater Collection Facilities. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Swle: Various; see maps - THE Ra c�2PAIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists GIs Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone:(518) 235-8050 Phone:(845) 454-3980 Phone:(845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone:(518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Index map of the Town and Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights showing the area depicted on the large scale map. I aArea depicted on large-scale map Municipal Boundary State Highway _ Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection Improvement Proiect 34 Village of Lan,sin•q Village of Cayuga Heights 1 2 4 Miles Crossing of Unique Natural Area 63 and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area 1astewater Collection Facilities. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps THE Chap COMPANIES Engineers / Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists - GIS Consultants CHAZEN ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING CO., P.C. Capital District Office: Dutchess County Office: Orange County Office: New England Office: North Country Office: 20 Gurley Avenue 21 Fox Street 263 Route 17K Stratis Business Centers 110 Glen Street Troy, New York 12182 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601- Newburgh, New York 12550 99 Derby Rd., Suite 200 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Phone: (518) 235-8050 Phone: (845) 454-3980 Phone: (845) 567-1133 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (518) 812-0513 Phone:(781) 556-1037 This map is a product of The Chazen Companies. It should be used for reference purposes only. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this map. The Chazen Companies expressly disclaims any responsibilities or liabilities from the use of this map for any purpose other than its intended use. Index map of the Town and Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights showing the area depicted on the large scale map. I - Town of. Lansing 34 413 Area depicted on large-scale map =Municipal Boundary = State Highway Village of I nsi.n4 lI i.11ag.e, of �,uga Heights 0 1 2 4 Miles Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Ithaca Area Municipal Wastewater Collection ImDrovement Proiect 3rossing of Unique Natural Areas 89, 102 and 103 and Proposed Town of Lansing Service Area Wastewater Collection Facilities. Created by: Carol Conolly Date: July 12, 2002 Scale: Various; see maps