The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230378 Washington Land Disturbance ApplicationFERRADINO BUSIN_E_SS_11 LEGAL ��`�x� STRATEGY �m FERRADINO FIRM, PLLC Stephanie W. Ferradino, Esq. " stef@ferradinofirm.com May 31, 2023 Saratoga Springs Planning Board Attn: Susan Barden City Hall — 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: WM Memorial Inc. Washington Street Land Disturbance Dear Susan: Via Hand Delivery Enclosed please find two (2) hard copy sets of following documents related to review of the within submission of an application for land disturbance activity permit on the above -mentioned property: 1. Application, including narrative from LaBella; 2. Environmental assessment form; 3. Plan set; and 4. Check in the sum of $995.00. I will be sending an electronic version of the document to you via email. Please advise if anything further is required and the date when this matter will be heard. Thank you. Very truly yours, Stephanie W. Ferradino Enc. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 260-1229 www.ferradinofirm.com City of Saratoga Springs OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES - 2023 Comprehensive Plan amendment $1,800 + $300/acre Zoning Ordinance amendment $800 + $300/acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment $800 + $300/acre Application to Zoning Board of Appeals Use Variance $1,400 + $50/app Area Variance - Residential $350/1st var +$50/app +$150/ea add variance Area Variance - Non-residential $1000/1 st var + $50/app+ $200/ ea add varianc( Interpretations $650 + $50/app Post Work Application Fee Application Fee x 2 + $50/app Variance extensions 50% of Application fee + $50/app Application to Design Review Commission Demolition $500 Residential Structures Principal $70 Accessory $70 Extension $35 Modification $55 Multi -Family, Comm, Mixed -Use Structures Sketch $200 Principal $650 Extension $250 Modification $400 Multi -Family, Comm, Mixed -Use Accessory, Signs, Awnings Principal $150 Extension $100 Modification $150 Post Work Application Fee Application Fee x 2 Application to Planning Board Special Use Permit $1200 + $50/app Temporary Use Permit $500 Special Use Permit - extension $400 Special Use Permit - modification $550 + $50/app Site Plan Review - incl. PUD: Sketch Plan $400 per sketch Site Plan Full Residential $400 + $250/unit Non-residential $800 + $150/1000 sf Administrative SPR Residential $400 Non-residential $800 Extension Residential $250 Non-residential $350 Subdivision - incl. PUD: Sketch Plan $400 per sketch Preliminary Approval Residential: 1-5 lots $700 + $50/app Residential: 6-10 lots $1100 + $50/app Residential: 11-20 lots $1450 + $50/app Residential: 21+ lots $1800 + $50/app Residential - extension $350 Final Approval Residential $1,550 + $200/lot + $50/app Non- Residential $2,400/lot + $50/app Final Approval Modification Residential $400 + $50/app Non- Residential $800 + $50/app Final Approval Extension Residential $250 Non- Residential $350 Other: Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Administrative Actioi $400 Letter of Credit - modification or extension $400 Letter of Credit - collection up to 1 % of LoC S , _Recreation_ Fee _-__.- $20000_0t Qr unit _ _ r �aCtSLGllslu[�ance _ _ VV/ tercourse/Wetland Permit $750 + $35/acre SEQRA EIS Review Draft & Final TBD OPED Fees r 5 Page 1 of 1 HANI)WKl'1'I'EN AYYLIC;A'FION5 WILL N0'I' Bh ACC'EFTEOH [FOR OFFICE USEI CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS .n PLANNING BOARD CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY •, SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296 PoRATEO TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533 www.saratoge-springs.org NC Neighborhood Center District (T-5) APPLICATION FOR: LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY PERMIT Property Address/Location: 239 Washington Street Tax Parcel o: 165.14-1-34.1 (for example: 165,524-37) Zoning District: NC Neighborhood Center District (T-5) Proposed Use: Vacant Land Date of any existing Land Use Board approvals (if any): APPLICANT(S)* Name David Mohr Address 239 Washington St, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Phone 518-441-0136 Email david@rhomenterprises.com (Application #) (Date received) (Project Title) Staff Review OWNER(S) (If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT Identify primary contact person: 0 Applicant ❑ Owner O Agent Stephanie Ferradino 83 Putnam St, Suite 202, Saratoga Springs, NY 128N 518-260-1229 stef@ferradinofirm.com * An -applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question. Please check the following to affirm information is included with submission. Q Environmental Assessment Form: All applications must include a completed SEAR Short or Long Form unless the project has already been given a "Negative Declaration" SEQR Forms can be completed at http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6191.html. Q Application Fee: Make checks payable to the "Commissioner of Finance". REFER TO THE CURRENT FEE WORKSHEET INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT. X 2 hard copies (*1 signed original) and one electronic copy (PDF) of ALL documents. 0 Plans: (2) copies: 24"x36". Check City's website (www.saratoga-springs.ora) for meeting dates. Does any City officer, employee or family member thereof have a financial interest (as defined by General Municipal Law Section 809) In this application? YES NO x If YES, a statement disclosing the name, residence, nature and extent of this interest must be filed with this application. Revised 8/2022 1, the undersigned owner or purchaser under contract for the property, hereby request land disturbance activity permit approval by the Planning Board for the identified property above. I agree to meet all requirements under Article 13.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs. Furthermore, I hereby authorize members of the Planning Board and designated City staff to enter the property associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this application. Applicant Signature: Date: If applicant is not currently the owner, the ner must also sign. / Owner Signature: Date: .S~' LaBeRa May 19, 2023 Mrs. Susan Barden, AICP Principal Planner 474 Broadway 3rd Floor, Suite 32 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: Washington Street Land Disturbance 239 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 LaBella Project 2230803 Dear Susan: This letter is in support of the Land Disturbance Activity Permit on behalf of the Applicant for the Washington Street Land disturbance project located at 239 Washington Street. All documents submitted are listed at the conclusion of this narrative. 1.0 SITE ADDRESS 239 Washington Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Tax Map Parcel: 165.14 - 1 - 34.1 2.0 APPLICANT David Mohr 239 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 3.0 Design Professional Contact Person: Roger E. Keating, PE, LEED AP BD+C LaBella Associates 4 British American Boulevard Latham, NY 12110 Phone: (518) 266-7324 4.0 SITE ZONING The project site is comprised of one (1) parcel (165.14-1-34.1) which lies within the City of Saratoga Springs Commercial Mixed -Use District - NC Neighborhood Center District (T-5). 5.0 SITE ACREAGE AND DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE AND USES The parcel is approximately 8.90 +/- acres. The parcel is currently occupied with an Auto Repair Service Center and a car wash that is located on the south section of the site. The center and northern section of the site are vacant with brush and woods. The site topography is moderately sloping generally from south to north and west to east. 4 British American Blvd Latham, NY 12110 p (518) 439-8235 The southern section (developed area) drains to an existing stormwater management practice located along the western property line north of the car wash. The center of the site contains a non- jurisdictional isolated wetland approximately 0.45 acres in size. The stormwater contributing to the non jurisdictional wetland is approximately 1.2 acres which is contained within the parcel limits. The north section of the site contains a non jurisdictional wetland approximately 1.56 acres in size. The stormwater contributing to the non jurisdictional wetland is approximately 12 acres. This contributing area includes the north section of the site, adjacent parcel to the north and portion of adjoining parcels to the east. 6.0 WETLANDS HISTORY In April 2013, The Chazen Companies' submitted an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) request to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the two wetlands on the Mohr property. This request demonstrated that the small 0.45-acre wetland in the southeast corner of the property was isolated under the US Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers No. 99-1178 (SWANCC), as flow from this wetland made its way into the storm sewer system along Washington Avenue, and the only potential linkage to any traditionally navigable water might be via migratory birds. The SWANCC ruling determined that potential use by migratory birds did not qualify on its own as providing a significant nexus for regulation of wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The April 2013 AJD request also presented documentation that the 1.56 acre wetland on the northern portion of the site did not have a significant nexus to Traditionally Navigable Waters, as thus should not be regulated, consistent with the US Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, No. 04-1034, and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The AJD request demonstrated that there was not significant physical, hydrological or chemical inputs from the 1.56-acre wetland to a Relatively Permanent Water or Traditional Navigable Water, and so should not be regulated under the Clean Water Act. By letter dated May 8, 2014, the USACE issued an AJD letter for the 8.9 acre site owned by David Mohr. The determination found that in light of U.S. Supreme Court decision in two cases (Rapanos v. United States, No. 04-1034, and Carabell v. US Army Corps of Engineers, both decided on June 19, 2006), the 1.56 acre wetland area did not meet the criteria of waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The AJD letter stated that the US Supreme Court ruled that non - navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent and their adjacent wetlands can no longer be considered waters of the United States if they do not significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of traditionally navigable waters. The May 8, 2014 AJD letter also found that in light of the US Supreme Court decision (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178) the 0.45 acre wetland did not meet the criteria of waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as the US Supreme Court ruled that isolated intrastate waters can no longer be considered waters of the United States based solely on their use by migratory birds. This criteria for determining whether a wetland would be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act remain in effect. According to the preamble to the January 18, 2023 "Revised Definition of Waters of the United States2: i Subsequently acquired by LaBella Associates in 2022. Z Federal Register. 2023. Volume 88, No. 11, Wednesday January 18, 2023. Rules and Regulations. Page 3005. "...The Supreme Court has twice more addressed the complex issue of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over "waters of the United States." Solid Water Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) ("SWANC"); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 175 (2006)("Rapanos"). This rule takes up that multi -faceted challenge. In developing this rule, the agencies considered the text of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, the scientific record, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies' experience and technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 regulations defining "waters of the United States." The agencies experience includes more than a decade of implementing those regulations consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Riverside Bayview, SWANCC and Rapanos. The agencies also considered the extensive public comment on the proposed rule. This rule establishes limits that appropriately draw the boundary of waters subject to Federal protection. When upstream waters significantly affect the integrity of waters for which the Federal interest is indisputable - the traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters - this rules ensures that Clean Water Act programs apply to protect those paragraphs (a)(1) waters by including such upstream waters within he scop of the "Waters of the United States." Where waters do not significantly affect the integrity of waters or which Federal interest is indisputable, this rule leaves regulations exclusively to the Tribes and States... By letter dated April 30, 2002, the NYSDEC ruled that "a wetland or its adjacent area was not found to be present on the property, therefore no freshwater wetland permit is required from the Department.... Based on my site inspection and discussion with a DOT engineer, the wetland on the east side of West Avenue is no longer connected by culvert to wetlands on the west side. The portion on the east side will be removed from the Amended NYSDEC regulatory map for Saratoga County. The enclosed map shows that DEC staff has determined the boundary of the wetland to be different than the boundary shown on the official filed wetland map. The change will be made using established procedures for amending the freshwater wetland map." This letter was signed by Alan Koechlein, Senior Wildlife Biologist at the time. 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project will include grading of the center and northern sections of the site. The southern section of the site will remain as is. The project proposed disturbance greater than one (1) acre and as such is subject to the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001). The project falls under Appendix B - Table 1: "Slope flattening that changes the grade of the site but does not significantly change the runoff characteristic." Stormwater collected on site will be conveyed by an on -site storm sewer network to the proposed stormwater management facility. The facility will be designed to safely detain stormwater runoff from the site, such that post -grading discharge rates are less than or equal to pre -grading discharge rates. As such, drainage impacts on adjoining properties are not anticipated as a result of this project. Detailed information regarding the stormwater design will be included in a Stormwater Report. Erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented during construction to prevent impact to neighboring properties and adjacent residential streets. e The stormwater system will include a small infiltration area along the northwest property. This infiltration basin will discharge through an 8" HDPE pipe to a larger infiltration area along the northeast property line. This infiltration basin will manage the stormwater from the property and the adjoining properties. The run ultimately discharge to the existing storm system within Outlook Ave will be at a discharge rate less than the pre -grading discharge rates. 8.0 CLOSING This narrative is intended to provide a brief summary of the proposed development. The information provided is believed to be accurate and true, limited by the investigation conducted and described above. The applicant is requesting that the project be placed on the next Planning Board agenda for project review. If you have any comments or questions regarding this application or if you require additional information, please feel free to contact this office at (518) 273-0055. LaBella Associates Roger E. Keating, PE, LEED AP BD+C Senior Civil Engineer cc: File 518-4870099 WOH 463 P02 OCT 28 102 12:13 I New York State Departlient of Environm- ental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marius Rssource#, Region 6 232 Hudson Streak - P.C).13ax 22tt, Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 Pho": (518) 623-1200 • FAX: (518) $23-3603 Webb te: www.dec.stata,ny.uS Erin Crotty ' Commis6ion®r April 30, 2002 Bill Mohr 239 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, Ny 12866 Re: Freshwater Wetland Dear Mr, Mohr; A, wetland or its adjacent area was not found to be present on the property; therefore, no freshwater wetlands permit is required from the Department, you are responsible for determining'if any other local, state or federal permits are required for the projects. For information regarding permits administered by the Department of Envl nearest you. rml mental Ctsnservat€on, please contact the Division of Regulatory Services at the office , Based on my site inspection and discussion with a DOT Engineer, the wetland on the east side of West Avenue is no longer connected by culvert to the wetlands on the west side. The portion an the east side of West AN -venue will be removed from the Amended NVS-DEC regulatory trap for Saratoga County, The enclosed map shows that DEC staff has determined the boundary of the wetland to be different from the boundary shown on the official filed wetlands map. The change will be made using established procedures for amending the freshwater wetlands map. Whether or not a freshwater wetlands permit will be required, you are responsible far determining if any other local, state or federal permits are required for the project(s). For information regarding permits administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, pleas; Oontaot the Division of Environlnetatai Permits at the office nearest you. For information regarding freshwater wetlands and Permits administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contact their office in Troy at 518-27(t-0588. Thank you for your inquiry and the opportunity to serve you. If you have any questions Freshwater Wetlands 1-,aw or Regulations, please contact us, regarding the Sincerely, Alan Koechloin Senior Wildlife Biologist AK: sc Enclosure cc: 1. Connell, ACf3E 516-4870099 WON 463 P03 OCT 28 '02 12:13 r� � 1 01 3 hl ti pyWate+ 7tad�r gar k :� � `•" ." FF � l {/ �. is i ,�i�`t,, .. • � 1ty L�' \ � � . r Spa'°`r+t+s• • `4q re •`�1u, *t+'� V't"' (Jl� �j '� ll i 15 re Got �� .,' ?r�i�� •'e� ; } aOrr• Gait codf� f ,r„r ��, sr• � t � r Ifar s _06 s �TRa w In Y A r CIA r _r of 1r t �1sm Pa, ti IF £ . ..F�.. y. ,NM t• • C�♦`• • � `�$ • a ItNRryj`. �. 29 � EfT , t•d ' .'R RRR + Y^"r ?rb a f Saratug / ry 3r 1�it4'Sch . .° ♦ T+r • t, $t Peters 6aTAt n Sprin ftei ; Crm Ntgh Srh ?grk w rW��'/ �filp '`Y'•�.� . ` ` y`• � ;f�`r<t'nnQ[se� Spa i ems* DIXIIatctNlti a '�� • BathS. AA `�►r�'t`i�j a .. r.. r 3D', f/ r�r�' . L'I+" • �d� • .. �• •.q,a�• �� ':` S +tf.J rr 8S'r�anCY• �� ' ,ice Gn,t Course s- Rgoo PAID AE t "';fie k r a.. fCGR E y ?'AAt i 4 STAtE ?SEE 'tMlvnr 47 Nl:ttRFItY . i T t +•tw SPAC y ` -20 t h 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US Anny Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CENANOP-RU UPet ft Regulatory Field Office 1 Buffington St, Building 1 R. North W�ervliet, New York 12189-4000 Upstate New York Section MAY 0 8 20U SUBJECT: Permit Application Number NAN 2013-00413 by Mohr, David City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York David Mohr Mohr Service Center 239 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Dear Mr. Mohr: On April 11, 2013, the New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received a request for a Department of the Army jurisdictional determination for an 8.9 acre site, currently owned by David Mohr. This request was made by The Chazen Companies, as your consultant. The site is located in the Hudson River watershed, along the east side of West Avenue and the north side of Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County, New York. The submittal received by this office on April 11, 2013, included a proposed delineation of the extent of waters of the United States within the project boundary. A site inspection was conducted by a representative of this office on July 23, 2013, in which it was agreed that changes would be made to the delineation and that the modified delineation, along with additional information that was requested during the inspection, would be submitted to this office. In submissions received on January 21 and March 20, 2014, this office received the modified delineation and requested additional information. Based on the material submitted and the observations of the representative of this office during the site inspection, the New York District has been determined that there are no jurisdictional waters of the United States on the 8.9 acre site. The site is depicted on the drawing entitled "Wetland Map, Lands of Mohr", prepared by Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC, dated April 21, 1997, and -last revised on September 28, 2013. It should be noted that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in two cases (Rapanos v. United States, No. 04-1034, and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 04-1384, both decided June 19, 2006), the.area consisting of 1.56 acres and identified as Wetland No. 2 on the above referenced drawing does not'meet the current criteria of waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent and their adjacent wetlands can no longer be considered waters of the United States if they �2- do not significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. It should also be noted that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178, January 9, 2001), the area consisting of 0.45 acre and identified as Wetland No. 1 on the above referenced drawing does not meet the current criteria of waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that isolated, intrastate waters can no longer be considered waters of the United States, based solely upon their use by migratory birds. This determination regarding the delineation shall be considered valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. This determination was documented using the Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form, promulgated by the Corps of Engineers in June 2007. A copy of that document is enclosed with this letter, and will be posted on the New York District website at: htto:/lwww.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/JuNsdictionalDeterminations aspx This determination has been conducted to identify the limits of the Corps Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed is a combined Notification of Appeal Process -(NAP) and Request For Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the North Atlantic Division Office at the following address: Michael G. Vssichelli, Administrative Appeals Review Officer North Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Engineer Division Fort Hamilton Military Community General Lee Avenue, Building 301 Brooklyn, New York 11252-6700 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by JUL 0 7 2014 . It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions. of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a -3- certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work. It is strongly recommended that the development of the site be carried out in such a manner as to avoid as much as possible the discharge of dredged or fill material into the delineated waters of the United States. If the activities proposed for the site involve such discharges, authorization from this office may be necessary prior to the initiation of the proposed work. The extent of such discharge of fill will determine the level of authorization that would be required. In order for us to better serve you, please complete our Customer Service Survey Located at: htt2:Lhvww.n@n.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/CustomerSury y aspx If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Christine Delorier, of my staff, at (518) 266-6354. Sincerely, Amy L. Gitchell Chief, Upstate New York Section Enclosures cc: NYSDEC Region 5, Warrensburg City of Saratoga Springs B. Beall — The Chazen Companies APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. sSEs'T10N is BACKGROUND INFORMATION A, REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): MAY a 8 2814 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: New York District; Mohr, David; NAN-2013-00413 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: East side of West Ave., north of Washington Ave. State: NY County/parish/borough: Saratoga City: Saratoga springs Center coordinates of site flat/long in degree decimal'format): Lat. 43.081181 N, Long. -73.80303° E. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows_: Kayaderosseras Creek Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Hudson-Hoosic, 02020003 ® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/arc available upon. request. ❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: ® Field Determination. Date(s): July 23, 2013 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers end Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area [Required) ❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. ❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "waters ofthe U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area [Requireal 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ❑ TNWs, including territorial seas [� Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ❑ Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Tt4% Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Th1Ws Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non -regulated waters/wetiaads (check if applicable)? ® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Refer to Section UI.F of this form. Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. ' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least -Seasonally- (e.g., typically 3 months). ' Supporting documentation is presenter) in Section III.F. 2 SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWa. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section IIIA.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetiand adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections Il1.A.I and I and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent'. B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it hells determine whether or not the standards for, jurisdiction established under Rapisoshave been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section ULD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetiand directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will Include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody` is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody ban a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation mast consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of No adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any oosite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offstte. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section iII.0 below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: PIeL UA Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pioli)<.ist river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick Ust aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are PlekUd aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWs: Tributary stream order, if known: Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and West. 5 Flow mute can be doacn'bed by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows dmmgh the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. (b) General Tribes+ Qgr ig ics (check all that WVW: Tributary is: ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (mangy. Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ❑ silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Typel%cover: ❑ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/rifi3e/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: M Litt Tributary gradient (appmftnate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: P"-Ust Estimate average number of flow events in review arealyear: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick Litt. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ❑ Bed and banks ❑ OHWMS (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ ❑ shelving ❑ ❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ❑ ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ ❑ sediment deposition ❑ ❑ water staining ❑ ❑ other (list): ❑ Discontinuous OHWM.t Explain: the presatce of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the p msence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): ❑ high Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Marie indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings; ❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. ❑ tided gauges ❑ other (list): (fib) Cbemical characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: - Identify specific pollutants, if known: `A mural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., when the stream temporarily flows underground. or where die OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practiml Where there is a break in the OHWM that is maelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. 4 (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics; ❑ Habitat for; ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or Indirectly into TNW (1) Physical Characteristics; (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: PickLjst. Explain: Surface flow is: PickLlat Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW: ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ❑ Ecological connection. Explain: ❑ Separated by bemVbarrier. Explain: (d) ProxximilIx (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pklt Llst river miles from TNW. Project waters arc P1skLht aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: P14 Lint. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick LM floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetlands) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pkk List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (YN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YN) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine If they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands, It Is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW} Similarly, the fait an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a fleodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapenas Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that ate present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or Indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section II1.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RIFW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section II1.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs rind Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size -estimates in review area: ❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft). Or, acres. ❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly Into TNWs. ❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: ❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non-RPWO that flow directly or Indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ❑ Other tton-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of webers: . . 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide drug and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section HI.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section III.13.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. S. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abetting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWL ❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisddictiooal. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II1.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWa. ❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. .Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. impoundments of jurisdictional waters,' Asa general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that wafer meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6). or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED JINTERSTATE OR INI'RA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):1e ❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign -travelers for recreational or other purposes. ❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and solo in interstate or foreign commerce. ❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. ❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: ❑ Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarbes rationale sapporli ft determination: "See Footnote # 3. ' To complete the analysis mhw to the key in Section II1.13.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. " Prim to sawlitg or declining CWA jwbecdm based solely on this category, Corps DisMete will elevate the action to Corps and EPA BQ for ntiwiew consistent with the pmeen described in the CorpdKPA Mmorwad1sm RegortIag CWA Ad Jnris a Fa ooft Raponaa Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (it). [� Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: , G Wetlands: acres. F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ if potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1997 Corps of Engineers Wetiand Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ® Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ® Other: (explain, if not covered above):.There is one isolated wetland, identified as Wetland 1, within the JD Boundary. The wetland is currently 0.45 acre and is located entirely within the &90 acre site boundary. On August 27, 2004, this office iesned an approved jurisdictional determination under Application Number NAN 2003300236, for the subject wetland determining that Wetland I is isolated and is not a wafer of the United States to light of the SWANCC decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court. The size of this wetland has reduced from the prior JD from 0.99 acre to 0.45 acre by filling and the construction of a stormwater management facility associated with a new car wash. This wetland continues to be physically isolated from any waters of the United States as it is surrounded by uplands. No physical changes have occurred on the site that could have caused this wetland to become part of it surface tributary system. As described in the previous JD, Wetland 1 continues to be connected to, and drain exclusively through, the storm sewer system for the City of Saratoga Springs. This system collects surface runoff from various city streets and directs it to Spring Run, a tributary to Kayaderosseras Creek. There is no evidence that a tributary currently or historically existed along the portion of the storm sewer system that drains these wetlands. A storm sewer system consisting mostly of underground pipes and catch basins is generally not considered to meet the definition of a -tributary, as outlined at 33 CPR 3283(axS). In addition, Wetland 1 is located over one mile from Spring Rue, and Wetland i is separated by the wetlands that were delineated in the northern portion of the property by an upland ridge, Wetland 1 also is not located within a mapped 100 year floodplala. Therefore, during times of heavy precipitation, there is very low probability that floodwater would reach an elevation necessary for water to flow from other jurisdictional waters into the subject wetlaDd. Wetland 1 would not be considered a traditional navigable water in that it does not have the necessary water depth to support navigation of any kind, and it does not have any surface hydrologic connection to a waterbody that would. The wetland does not cross any state boundary and does not have a use that would associate it with interstate commerce. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional udgment (check all that apply): Non-wettand waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakestponds: acres. Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: 0.45 acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Q Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear fect, width (ft). 8 Lakes/ponds: acres. �) Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ❑ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES, A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in cage file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): 0 Maps,'plans, plots or plat submitted by or on bebalf of the applicant/consultant: Drawing entitled "Wetland Map, Lands of Mohr", prepared by Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC, dated April 21, 1997, and last revised September 26. 2013. ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ® Office concurs with data slieeWdelineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters' study: NAN listing for Kayaderosseras Creek. [] U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHI) data. 0 USGS & and 12 digit HUC maps. ® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Saratoga Springs Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Saratoga County Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: on Saratoga Springs Quadrangle. Statck oval wetland inventory map(s): on Saratoga Springs Quadrangle. FEMA/FIRM maps: Map #36091000433 E, Panel 433 of 693, Effective August 16, 1995. [] 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs: 0 Aerial (Name & Date): GIS orthos dated September 25, 20I3. or ® Other (Name & Date): ground level on and off -site photos from various dates from 2004 to 2013. Previous dete rmination(s). File no. and date of response letter: NAN-2003-00236, August 27, 2004. Applicable/supporting case law: SWANCC. Applicabletsupporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: None. APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook SECTION I: DACKGR ION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): MAY Q 8 .2014 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: New York District; Mohr, David; NAN-20L%,-m13 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: East side of West Ave., north of Washington Ave. State: NY Coumy/parishlborougb: Saratoga City: Saratoga Springs Center coordinates of site (Wong in degree decimal format): tat 43.081 IS* K Long.-73.80303' It. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody Unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook Name of nesrca Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows. Kayademsseras Creek Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Hudson-Hoosic, 02020003 Check if map/duvam of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas islara available upon request. Check if other sites (e.&, offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD dorm. D- REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Dame: Field Dion Datc(s): July 23, 2013 SON Eb SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA• SECTION 14) DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Afar" "navlgaNe waters of the U.S" within Rivas and Harbors Act (RHA) ju isdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. (Requ&Ldl Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMWATION OF JURISDICTION There akmA%"waarr O the US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as de£mod by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) 1. Waters of the U.S. X. Iadicstie presence of waters of U.S. in review area (cheek all that apply):' TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Rdafavely permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow duectly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Ideality (admate) Sze of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Nam -wetland waters: linear feet: with (ft) and(a acres. Wetlands: acres. e- Limits (boaadaries) ofJurisdiction based on. i Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non -regulated waterdwedands (eheck U applicable)? IM Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Refer to Sections IILB.2, HLC and 11LF atthis form. ' Bom dwdwd below shag be supportedby completing the gvwp uft sections in Section M below. Z For purposes of this form, en RPW is drf10Cd as a tri fivy that is not a TNW and that *vicaRy tows year-round or has coohmwus flow at least' seasonally" (e.&. tYPkaY 3 moult). 3 SuMorting docUMENioa is peaaried in Section iilp. SECTION III• CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wefhmds adjacent to TNWL •If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section IILA.1 and Section MAL only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section IILB below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination! 2. Wedand adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACrERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapuases have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWa}, i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous now at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abate an RPW is also jurisdictional. H the aquatic resource is not a TN t but has year -mood (perennial) flow, side to Section MLD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, SUP to Section >aD.4. A wetland that Is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a sigaificaut nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significaot nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the water body i is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. Hthe tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation mast consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for. analytical parposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area idendfled in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section MJL1 for the tributary, Section IILB.2 for say asite wetlands, and Section HLB3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onshe and oifiite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists Is determined in Section IIi.0 below. L Characteristics of non-TNWs Oat flow directly or indirectly into (1) General Area Conditions: wed size: ii+ * TAM Drainage area: pep Average annual ramiall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (h) Physical Characteristics: (a}RdsfigvAW with TNW: ❑ TH-butary flows directly into TNW ❑ Tributary flows through ll' * tributaries before entering TNw. Project waters are VI%kUA rivet miles from TNW. Project waters are lj river miles from RPW. Project waters are ct3( aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are aerial (straight) mires from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWs: Tributary stream order, if known: `Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional iaformation regarding swales, ditnc�s, washes, and erosional fieadars generally and in the and V4'est. 5Flow route can be described by identilying, e.g., tributary a, which Soma through the review mes, to flow inla tributary b, which them flows into TNW. (b) General Ln:kign ammaeristics (check all that Tributary is: 0 Natural [] Artificial (than -made). 'Explain: 0 Manipulated (man -altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width- feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: 1. ftimary tributary substrate coTposition (check all that apply): 0 silts LJ Sands ❑ concrete El Cobbles [I Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock 0 Vegetation. Type/0% cover: ❑ Other. Explain: Tributary conditioWstability [e.g.. highly ceding sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence Of rtlolfifllelpOdl complexes. Explain: Tributary geornetrr. MLW Tributary gradient (approximate average slope). % (c) Flow. Tributary provides for "*V* Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pinham Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Sudwe flow is: TW44.4 characteristics:. Subsurface How- "*]* Explain findings: 0 Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): [I Bed and banks [I OHwhe(cbmk all indicators that apply): Q clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ in the character of soil 0 ❑changes &e1ving ❑ vegetation matted down, bcK or absent ❑ ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ sediment deposition ❑ water staining 0 other (list): [I Discontinuous OHWA7 Explain; the presence of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the presence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community If factors other than. the OHWM were used to &,Win= lateral extent of MAjurisdiction (check all that apply): High 111de Line indicated by: 0 Mew High Water Mark indicated by: Ll oil or sewn line along shore objects [I survey to available daum- ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) 0 physical markings, ❑ physical inarldnocharacteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vageltation types. ❑ tidal ❑ other (list): (10) Cbeukkal Charaderistics: Characterize tributary (cg., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: 6A natural or mw4na& dworifininty in ft OHWM does not nccmsu* sewer jurisdiction (cg., where the stream tn*mn* awNs underground, or where the OHWM has been rentoved by dovidoprocat or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unmldcd to the wairtbody's flow = fl (eg., ow over a rock outcrop or dffou& a culvwt), the agencies will look for indicators of Bow above and below the break Qv) Biological Characteristics Channel supports (check all that apply ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquatietwildlife diversity. Explain findings: - 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wedand Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: 1.56 acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland 2 is a predominantly forested palustrine wetland. Western portion is disturbed and contains pbragothes australis. Wetland quality. Explain: Limited functions as it is hydrologically cut off from other surface waters. The wetland has been disturbed by surrounding development and now encroachment by invasive species. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Project waders do not cross or serve as state boundaries. (b) General ElowRolgioft with Non-TAIW: Flow is: l+ls Ppts Explain: Wetland 2 slopes gently to the wes, to West Avenue. West Avenue bisects Wetland 2 and the wetlands located on the west side of West Avenue. Thee are no culverts or other drainage systems that provide a surface hydrological connection between Wetland 2 to the wetlands on the opposite side of West" Avenue The culvert that was once present was filled in by the New York State Department of Transportation over 12 years ago and no longer functions. Although portions of Welland 2 are frequently inundated, water marks on trees suggest that the water does not reach an elevation where it could overtop West Avenue and flow into the western off -site wetlands and ultimately into the unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook on any routine or puaedictable basis. Wetland 2 used to be part of State Wetland 5-47, which also includes the wetlands on the west side of West Avenue. Once the NYSDEC confirmed that there was a lack of hydrological connection between Wetland 2 and the other wetlands, the NYSDEC decided by letter dated April 30, 2002, that Wetland 2 is no longer considered a state regulated wetland Wetland 2 is influenced by groundwater, however, given the fill in place for West Avenue and lack of culvert, subsurface flow from Wetland 2 to reach the unnamed tributary (which is 579 feet away) is highly unlikely. The more routinely ponded areas within Wetland 2 are located further to the east from West Avenue and the West Avenue road embankment is intact, with no signs oferosion. Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Mi. Explain findings: There is a physical barrier between Wetland 2 and the wetlands on the west side of West Avenue. The nearest tributary is 579 feet to the west of Wetland 2. ❑ Dye (or other) test performed. (c) Wedand Adiaoencv Determination with Wait-TNW, ❑ Directly abutting ® Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connexion. Explain: ❑ Ecological connection. Explain: ® Separated by bem/barner. Explain: Wetland 2 is located an the east side of West Avenue. There are wetlands located on the west side of West Avenue. West Avenue scparates these wedarels, and there is no culvert or other type of drainage facility present tbat would hydrologically connect the two wetlands. The unnamed tnbutary to Putnam Brook is loud, off -site, on the western side of West Avenue. The tributary starts 579 feet away from the Wetland 2. (d) Proximity f gWLgnshig) to TNW Project wetlands are river miles from TNW. Project waters are Z4 aeial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: No)%ot. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the -,it>E W floodplain. (n) Chemical Charieteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on s dace; water qmu W. general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: The standing water within Wetland 2 is clear. Water quality is good. Identify specific pollutants, if known: There are no known pollutants, but Wedand 2 would likely receive typical pollutants from road nmoff Traffic is heavy on West Avenue; estimated at over 10,000 vebicles per day. (iir) Biological Characteristic& Wetland. supports (check all that apple& Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): - ® Vegetation typelpercent cover. Explain: Predominantly forested,100% cover, with small portion of western wetland area dominated by Phragmites australis. ® Habitat for. ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environtnmtally-sensitive species. Explain findings: small mammals. ® Aquatic/wildlife diversity- Explain findings: Wetlands and edge uplands provide habitat for amphibians, buds and 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: I Appraximately (1.56 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y1N) Size (in acres) N 1.56 Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical flmctions being performed: Wetland 2 is predominantly forested, but the western portion of the wetland has become dominated with Phragmit es anstralis. Wetland 2 does not function as a floodplain for the unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook (the RPW into which Wetland 2 had a historic physical connection to). Wetland 2 fimcxions to varying degrees include groundwater re ch"Vjdhschagp A floodflow sitaration, nutrient re=WdhcWr&n&ausiurmaftMand wildlife habitat. The floodtlow alteration and wildlife habitat functions of Wetland 2 are limited due to the lack of hydrologic connection to other waters and because it is n nuwxW by development and it is not ecologically diverse. C. SIGNMCANT NEXUS DETER1Y MATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and function of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wedandsi adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the ehemic ol, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following alitaationt, a significant nexus exists ifthe tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effid on the chemical, ppbysleal andJor biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proxhtlty to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific thresbold efdistatnce (e g. between a tributary and its adjacent wedand or between a tributary and the TNW). Simliarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outride of a f leadplain its not solely detmltative of significant ne:a& Draw connections between the fentnra documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Ailmmu Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guideboob. Factors to consider include, for example: a Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if anyl have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other slecim such as %eding nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that we present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the carpacity to trasushr nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodv/dW • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have Other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above lint of considerations fs not inclusive and other functions observed or imown to occur should be documented below: I. Significant nexon fndhW for set-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of pvesenae or absence of significam nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IIT.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for men-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non3iPW flows directly or indirectly Into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD: 3. Significant sexas findings for waWnds adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of signiflcaud nexus blow, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section ID.U: On August 27, 2004, this office issued an approved jurisdictional determination under Application Number NAN- 20034)0236, for the subject wetland determining that Wetland 2 is a jurisdictional water of the United States under 33 CFR Part 3283(a)(7)_ This determination was appealed, but was upheld by USACE's North Atlantic Division on March 10, 2005 (prior to CnrabelfRapanos). Wetland 2 is located on the east side of West Avenue. Wetlands are present on the opposite side of West Avenue. That is no culvert or otbw dunnage system that provides a direct surface hydrological connection between these waters. Any subsurface flow between those waters is speculative and would be minimal. The tributary to which these wetlands are adjacent starts about SW feet west of Welland 2. The off -else wetlands on tlu west side of West Averme directly abut the unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook, which is an RPW. Wetland 2 and the off -situ wetlands that directly abut the unnamed RPW are not similarly situated given Wetland ?s lack of surface hydrological connection to the RPW, and the severed ecological connection between them. The ecological connection is severed by the lack of hydrological connection and the heavily traveled West Avenue. Tberelbm Wetland 2 should be assessed on its own. Wedand 2 does not have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to the TNW (Kayadtmss res Creek)i which is over 5.7 river miles downstream, due to its lack of surface hydrological connection and Wetland Ts location outside of the 500 year floodplain of the TNW and associated tributaries. Wetland 2 has a negligible potential to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters from reaching the TNW because it can capture runoff and no longer has an outlet to the unnamed tributary. The 1.56 acre Wetland 2 makes up approximately 0.041% of the total amount of wetlands that are estimated to be wtihm the subject watershed leading to the TNW (unnamed tributary to Putnam Brook to Slade Creek to Geyser Brook to Kayaderosseras Creek}. The Kayaderossetas Creek supports a native and stocked trout fishery, and habitat for other RA including walleye. There is a lade of published information concerning non -fish species such as amphibians, reptiles and macroinvertebrates that utilize the TNW. The TNW is within a Bird Conservation Area due.to the diversity of species usage, including by neotropieal and wabufowl migrants. Wetland 2 does not support any fish and is used on a limited basis by common regional birds. Other species do not have a safe connection to the waters on the other side of West Avenue. Given its lack of physical connection to and the distance to the off -site tributary, Wetland 2 does not provide any measurable habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that arse present in the TNW. This potential is further hampered from local development that bisects any potential corridor that could have existed and becanse if there were any rannant physical connection to the unnamed tributary, the tributary is piped far a distance of approximately 600 feet, causing a further impediment to aquatic life passage. Wetland 2 does not have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs because it does not have a surface outlet to downstream ureters, nor is it in the floodplain ofthese waters. Wetland 2 does not have any other relationships to the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the TNW, the Ka ederosseras Creek. D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THX SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: 8 TNWs: linear fleet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW& E3TnbuWcs of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round arejurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: 13 Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section I1LB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: • liaear feet width (ft). Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify types) of waters: 3. Non-RPWsa that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. 13 Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section MC. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters. linear feet width (fit). Other non -wetland waters: awes. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW& Ll Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus arejurisdictional as adjecerht wetlands. 13Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale Indicating that tributary is perennial in Section M.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: 13Wetlands directly abut1 mg an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section 11LB and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: ants. S. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. *See Footnote # 3. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they we adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are junsidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section HLC. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional. wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from `waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR I NTRA.-STATE] WATM& INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WMCH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):" which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish we or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear fiat width (ft). Other non wetland waters: acres. Identify types) of waters: Wetlands: acres. F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed wiffim the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or apt Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial now to kdermate (or f nvign) comment. ❑ Prier to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWAMCC�" the review area would have been regulated based i'o_1cJX on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (hMR). Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Explanation on iindior for Wetland 2 is found in Section IILC above. 0 Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for not-jutigdicXionai waters in the review area, where the g& potential basis of jurisdiction is fhe MBR factors (Le., presence of migratory birds, presence of endued species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional udgment (check all that apply): Non -wetland waters (Le., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non -wetland waxers: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for nor -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is roquh,ad for jurisdiction (chwk all dint apply): . s To complete the analysis refer to the Ivey in Section IRD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. m Prior to asserflag or declining CWA jars based solely oa this category, Corps Diddefs will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ tar review condlstent with the procese described in the Corper/EPA MeasarawkinRegs r q CWA Ad JurkdWan Fob Rqw wrx Non -wetland waters (ie., rives, streams): linear feed width (ft). Lakew`ponds: acres. Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource - Wetlands: 1.50 acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (ebeck all tbat apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): 0 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultaut: Drawing entitled "Wetland Map, Lands of Mohr", ared by Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC, dated Aptil 21.1997, and last revised September 26, 2013. Data sbwft prepared/submitted by ur on behalf of the applicantkonsultank ® Office e concurs with data sheets/delineation report ❑ Office does not concur with data sheeWdclincation report Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Corps navigable waters' study: NAN listing for Kayadcrosmeras Creek. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Saratoga Springs Quadrangle, 7.5 ilimnte Series. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surrvey. Citation: Saratoga County Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: on Saratoga Springs Quadrangle. State41,0ea1 wetland inventory map(s): on Saratoga Springs Quadrangle- FEMA/FIILM maps: Map #36091000433 E. Panel 433 of 693, Effective August 16,1995. 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Goodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date): GIS orthos dated September 25, 2013. or ® Other (Name & Date): ground level on and off -site photos frnat various dates from 2004 to 2013. Previous dekmnination(s). File as and date of response letter NAN 2003-00236, August 27, 2004, and NAN-1997-01270, March 31 1998. Applicable/supporting case law: Carabel/Rapanos. ApplicableJsupporting scientific literature: Other information (please specify): Functional assessment of Wetland 2 prepared by The Chazen Companies and received by USAGE on January 21, 2014; NYSDEC wetland fmdiogs letter dated April 30, 2002, All remaining records for NAN-200340Y236, including CENAD appeal findings dated March 10, 2005, and Order of Summary Judgment in the: United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Case No. 4:09-cv 0029-RRB (Gnat North, Im vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: 10 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 — Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1— Project and Sponsor Information W M Memorial Inc. Name of Action or Project: Washington Street Land Disturbance Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): 239 Washington Street Brief Description of Proposed Action: Land Disturbance permit to achieve proposed grading activities. See attached narrative. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 518-260-1229 David Mohr represented by Stephanie Ferradino, Esq. E-Mail: stef@ferradinofirm.com Address: 239 Washington Street City/PO: State: Zip Code: Saratoga Springs NY 12866 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? NO YES If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. Q ❑ 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: Fz-To- 3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. ❑ Urban ❑ Rural (non -agriculture) ❑ Industrial m Commercial m Residential (suburban) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): ❑ Parkland Page .I of 3 5. Is the proposed action, a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? NO YES N/A ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES ❑ ❑✓ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical :Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: NO YES ❑✓ ❑ 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? NO YES ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: NO YES ❑ ❑✓ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water: NO YES ❑ ❑ 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: NO YES ❑✓ ❑ 12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SIIPO) archaeological site inventory? NO YES ❑ ❑✓ ❑ 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: In 2002, NYSDEC ruled that the wetlands on the property were non jurisdictional. In 2013, the ACOE provided a letter that demonstrated the wetlands were not regulated under the Clean Water act. See attached narrative and letters. NO YES ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 3 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑ Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid -successional mWetland m Urban ❑ Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? NO YES ❑ ❑ 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES Z✓ ❑ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sources? If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: NO YES ✓❑ ✓❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: NO YES ❑ ❑ 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? If Yes, describe: NO YES ❑ ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: NO YES FV_1 ❑ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/nai e: David Mohr Date: ' ,) t Signature: Owner PRINT FORM ['age 3 of 3 EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, April 24, 2023 9:14 AM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist t.t - tjrCVI S project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although t4atvin ) the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order atz to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a -. bra 0 ot ttof C, substitute for agency determinations. ttttt 0, ""� �' °n C?tlha ArCazitt�eat d�� ! " AT P Saratto . ngs - s ad f' 0 4o 4 f t i s t r Alowy �,r and ( in 30 %, "t � k ` .�iF`t 2 AMR York ;amfln ll" U 4nn ��a: ItJCRENIENTP, IAROn„ Esn Juan METi, EsgCha)XVH$pg k0tt , Es ' .tttbinh �nt� �, � ar��.r�ht: tf-AEt�rt'� Non �sn Japiii t;tEM, Estt Ch+tna (h 0119 honk. Est) K t,°'Fart (thaliar et, t%IGCC, (fit 0peiSb,eettAap con0butors, at}zt he Gfi' J r Cornrn tidy ,0#i(N)#46tr;eetMap � t�Cnl�t {9�t��t� (As User 0-xilm unt y Part 1 / Question [Critical Environmental No Area] Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State No Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and Regulated Waterbodies] waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or No Endangered Animal] Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] No Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report I